[AvC] Two Works Which Changed Our Understanding Of The Development Of The Human Race And The Origin Of Life On Earth.

[TLC]

Two works vital for understanding the development of the human race
and the origin of life on Earth were published in the mid-19th century
- The Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick
Engels in 1848 and Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

Both works were ground-breaking in that, by empirical methods, they
produced a scientific analysis that refuted previous religious and
philosophical concepts of the world in which we live.

They linked the dialectics of nature - representing the continual
struggle of all species on Earth for survival and development - with
historical and dialectical materialism, which sees the human race
developing from primitive tribal societies, holding land in common
ownership, to class societies in which the struggles of the oppressed
against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter, result in
new social organisations and formations. These have had a lasting
effect on subsequent international events and universal education.

Because of the challenge to orthodox religion and politics which these
works represent, they are still under attack from fundamentalists and
the ruling capitalist class. But more than 160 years have passed
without any serious refutation of the scientific facts which these
publications contain.

In our epoch, the rise of a capitalist class owning advanced
industrial machinery, manufacturing solely for profit and seeking
control of resources, including human resources, throughout the world,
has produced a form of slavery, wage slavery, which has displaced the
peasantry and the craft guilds responsible for small scale production
and led to the creation of a class of industrial workers - men, women
and children - driven to the expanding cities by a lack of land and
poverty.

Thus a new class, the proletariat, has been formed. To this new class
Marx and Engels attribute the historical role of combining its forces
to replace the capitalist system with a new form of society; one in
which the mass of the people - workers by hand and brain, men and
women - develop alternative means of production for use and not for
profit, and create new forms of social organisation to suit their
needs, including the necessity to preserve the ecology and sustainable
balance of the Earth on which they, the majority of the human race,
live. Marx and Engels called this communism.

The first attempt in the history of the world to form such a society
took place in Russia in 1917, paradoxically a backward, semi-feudal
country with only a small proletariat but a large peasantry demanding
land.

Lenin understood the implications of the Communist Manifesto and
combined with it a study of the new form of capitalism - finance-
capital or "imperialism" - which produced nothing, but sought to
control the world simply by the export of money.

His party, the Bolsheviks, took advantage of the chaos and misery
brought about by the imperialist first world war and led the Russian
people to overthrow both feudalism and capitalism in one fell swoop.
Their slogan was "Bread, land and peace."

Despite every attempt to undermine the victory of the Bolsheviks, by
isolation, starvation and direct intervention by 14 countries in
support of the White counter-revolutionary forces, the first socialist
state in the world was formed - the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. Marx and Engels had envisaged that the most advanced
proletariat would create this new society, which they called the
dictatorship of the proletariat, but the lot fell to a vast country
with only a small manufacturing base.

Isolated in a hostile world, Joseph Stalin, who became leader after
the death of Lenin, pursued the line that socialism could be built in
one country.

This was a new idea in the development of communist ideology.
Socialism, which is public ownership of the means of production,
distribution and exchange, was always seen as an interim phase before
stateless, classless communism.

Pursuing the necessity to rapidly develop industry and agriculture -
sometimes with harsh effects on individuals and communities - a
powerful state arose which was able to withstand the onslaught of
fascism from 1941 in a way that no other country in mainland Europe
could.

The Soviet Union was largely responsible for the defeat of nazi
Germany in World War II, but suffered terrible losses in terms of
people and infrastructure. It rebuilt itself and took on a powerful
role in world politics.

The demise in 1991 of this first socialist state - a bulwark against
imperialism but driven to compete with it in the real world of
armaments and capitalist consumerism - has affected peace and
stability throughout the world.

However, the Soviet Union created an example for revolutionary forces
everywhere, one which must be studied and understood, criticised and
improved upon but respected and admired for its truly great
achievements.

At this time, when all the peoples of the former Soviet Union and
Europe have been celebrating the 65th anniversary of the defeat of the
racist, sexist, genocidal ideology of fascism, we in Britain must
examine our own weaknesses.

Lenin once famously wrote that "one step forward, two steps back"
happens in the history of nations and in the development of parties.
This is the nature of dialectics.

Juggling with arrangements among bourgeois parties as to who will rule
the country, all of them solely representing the interests of
international finance capital, will not solve the problems of the
working class.

As was described in the Communist Manifesto, capitalism, at various
times, alienates not only the working class, which consists of the
majority of people, but also the petty bourgeoisie - the small
business people and small farmers - and at times even sections of the
bourgeoisie and state machine. This is the case in Britain now.

The danger lies in where this discontent will be led. It is the duty
of Communists and all progressive people to ensure that - through
socialist leadership and constant resistance to pressure to solve
capitalism's problems by impoverishing and destroying the power of the
working class and its organisations - this discontent does not lead to
fascism, as it did in pre-war Germany.

Defeating a new generation of fascists is a political priority and the
price of this is eternal vigilance.

Finally, we must end imperialism's mad rush to war to control the
resources it needs for its continued existence. These wars are not
supported by the majority of people and their connection with
environmental damage to the fragile ecology of the planet is now being
understood.

A nation which expends so much of its budget on weapons of mass
destruction is not only causing untold suffering and destruction
throughout the world, but is also destroying the social welfare on
which its masses depend.

It is time to return to the vision of a better world as described in
the Communist Manifesto and to charge the human race - a very recent
late-comer to the amazing, beautiful Earth depicted by Darwin in The
Origin of Species - with preserving it from mindless, careless
destruction.

I should like to end with one thought. There are voices which wish to
erase the name of Communism in favour of some alternative which is
considered to be more palatable to the public.

To be a Communist is to carry a heavy responsibility. It is to
constantly apply Marxist-Leninist theory to every current situation
and to act as the heart, mind and advanced leader of the masses.

At the same time, one must never divorce oneself from grass roots and
popular life in all its cultural diversity. Marx and Engels led a rich
cultural life while remaining close to the trade unions and all
political movements which represented the working class, the struggle
for women's rights and national sovereignty.

They never divorced theory from practice, nor encouraged dogmatism.
Communists in many places in the world are struggling, suffering and
dying for their convictions. I salute them and wish them every
success. They represent the best and highest aspirations of the human
race for peace, justice, equality and a good and happy life.

Jean Turner is honorary secretary of the Society for Co-operation in
Russian and Soviet Studies. This is an edited version of her speech at
the Annual Karl Marx Oration at Highgate cemetery.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[chazwin]

Interesting but ideologically unsound.

1 the contents of both books have been significantly challenged.
2 The soviet union was never socialist
3 The Soviet union was never really marxist either
4 Marx was wrong in that he 'predicted' a time, a next stage in the
evolution of economic man would throw of his oppressors and reject
capitalism. This never happened - not even for a sort time. The
Soviet was a form of capitalism; state capitalism.
5 Russia defeating the Nazis is not relevant, and appears in your text
as an emotional device.
6 Your assertion that the failure of the soviet in 1991 has affected
world peace - you have not said how.
7 Very little is mentioned about Darwin. The association of Capital
with Origin is little more that temporal and con-incidental. You don't
get away with credibility by association where no association exists.
8. Russia's immediate fall into a state of exception and a state of
oppression distances itself from the aims of Marx and other
philosophers of the political left. Authoritarianism is the nemesis of
all politics of emancipation.

[dali_70]

The Manifesto of the Communist Party? Seriously?
There's no doubt that it had a major effect on human history of the
20th century (mostly a negative one), but it's a flawed and failed
ideology. It's track record across the globe isn't anything to be
bragging about.

[Kippers]

Interesting post for which I only have time to offer a few simple
criticisms.

I don’t agree with equating a political or economic ideology with a
scientific theory.

As far as can be said that communism has an empirical basis is in
looking at the outcomes of countries which have actually practiced
it. Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China and current day North Korea do not
speak well towards its benefits even though Marx himself would likely
have disapproved of how his theory was manipulated by the dictators in
these countries.

I don’t agree that the remedy to extremist right wing political
ideologies, like fascism, are extremist left political ideologies like
communism.

I believe some form of capitalism is necessary in order to provide
motivation for the hardest working and most talented to excel.
However the current situation given the gap between rich and poor,
both nationally and globally, is totally unacceptable and needs
addressing in some way. For all the merits of its aims I don’t
believe communism to be a tenable option for governing a country in
way to get the most (in terms of happiness and output) from its
citizens.

Cheers
Kippers

[chazwin]

On the contrary, the communist manifesto had the most progressive and
positive effect on the 20th century. Probably more than any other
single piece of writing of it age, ranking right up there with JS
Mill's On Liberty.
The communist manifesto, although never fully carried out, provided
millions of ordinary people with the inspiration to march, gain votes,
rights, public health provision, education...

[chazwin]

You might believe in god, but that does not stop the existence of
atheists.
The point is that TLC is correct to equate the two things because that
is exactly what Marx did.
He tried to fulfil the age-old aim of understanding the social in
terms of the science, along with Hobbes and others. His views were
materialist and determinist in a philosophical sense.

>
> As far as can be said that communism has an empirical basis is in
> looking at the outcomes of countries which have actually practiced
> it.  Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China and current day North Korea do not
> speak well towards its benefits even though Marx himself would likely
> have disapproved of how his theory was manipulated by the dictators in
> these countries.

That is the point - none of those countries are remotely communist.

>
> I don’t agree that the remedy to extremist right wing political
> ideologies, like fascism, are extremist left political ideologies like
> communism.

Did he say that?

>
> I believe some form of capitalism is necessary in order to provide
> motivation for the hardest working and most talented to excel.

But that is an article of Faith for which there are many exceptions in
anthropology.

> However the current situation given the gap between rich and poor,
> both nationally and globally, is totally unacceptable and needs
> addressing in some way.  For all the merits of its aims I don’t

> believe communism to be a tenable option for governing a ...

No but communism as conceived by Marx has yet to be tried.



>
> read more »

[thea]

 

And my question is -- as far as I can tell if you don't know which dispensation you are living in, in the Bible - you believe in the redistribution of wealth from the few to the many?  Isn't this Communism?

 

Does the Catholic church preach communism?

[Kippers]

On 18 May, 15:20, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I don’t agree with equating a political or economic ideology with a
> > scientific theory.
>
> You might believe in god, but that does not stop the existence of
> atheists.

I do not dispute the existence of comunists. I thought that was
obvious.

> The point is that TLC is correct to equate the two things because that
> is exactly what Marx did.

And Marx cannot be mistaken about anything? Perhaps you can explain
to me how political and economic ideologies equate to scientific
theories rather than appealing to the authority of Marx?

> He tried to fulfil the age-old aim of understanding the social in
> terms of the science, along with Hobbes and others. His views were
> materialist and determinist in a philosophical sense.
>

Marx was a philosopher who produced a work of philosophy, just as
Hobbs did. Again this is not the same as a scientific theory.

>
>
> > As far as can be said that communism has an empirical basis is in
> > looking at the outcomes of countries which have actually practiced
> > it.  Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China and current day North Korea do not
> > speak well towards its benefits even though Marx himself would likely
> > have disapproved of how his theory was manipulated by the dictators in
> > these countries.
>
> That is the point  - none of those countries are remotely communist.
>

Well most people including the leaders of those countries would
disagree with you. That in the real world communism does not in fact
lead the utopia envisioned by Marx is sadly a failing of his ideas
which work against human nature and are thus doomed to failure.

>
>
> > I don’t agree that the remedy to extremist right wing political
> > ideologies, like fascism, are extremist left political ideologies like
> > communism.
>
> Did he say that?
>

Well I think its a she as its a quoted speech by someone called jean
rather than TLC's own words, but Yes. Read the speech again you will
see its clearly implied in there if not explicitly stated. Communism
is put forth as the best tool for combating fascism.

>
>
> > I believe some form of capitalism is necessary in order to provide
> > motivation for the hardest working and most talented to excel.
>
> But that is an article of Faith for which there are many exceptions in
> anthropology.
>
> > However the current situation given the gap between rich and poor,
> > both nationally and globally, is totally unacceptable and needs
> > addressing in some way.  For all the merits of its aims I don’t
> > believe communism to be a tenable option for governing a ...
>
> No but communism as conceived by Marx has yet to be tried.
>

My point would be communism as espoused by Marx cannot succeed without
falling into the corruption of every state which has ever tried it.
That is its fatal flaw. Nowhere on earth has successfully implemented
it after many attempts. I can list reasons why it seems flawed to me
but its far easier to merely point to everywhere that has tried it and
witness the disasters which have subsequently ensued.

[Khurram Chaudhry]

i agree

the communist manifesto had such revolutionary ideas as universal education for all. jobs for all

etc.

it was humane.

many people in the west have been fed propoganda that makes communism inhumane.

ciao@

[Walt]

Marx's thought his social scientific theories were proven enough to
allow for the construction of the optimal society. This was a
fantasy. There are many contradictory social scientific theories, but
none can be clearly proven or falsified, and none are effectively
predictive enough for "scientfic" governance as Marx envisioned it.
The least bad alternative is a free market economy with anti-
monopolistic and other regulation to prevent gross abuses and
concentration of power. Elective democracy is needed so that, when
inevitable bad mistakes are made in governance, social peace is
somewhat maintained because the majority of people accept a degree of
responsibility for the mistakes.

Marx was certainly a great economist though, perhaps the greatest
ever.

[Bodmerocity]

Marx's work is also the basis for sociology.

[xeno]

On May 18, 12:29 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The least bad alternative is a free market economy with anti-
> monopolistic and other regulation to prevent gross abuses and
> concentration of power.

Monopolies are inevitable under capitalism.

>  Elective democracy is needed

For whom? Any government is a dictatorship & under capitalism, it's a
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

> so that, when
> inevitable bad mistakes are made in governance, social peace is
> somewhat maintained because the majority of people accept a degree of
> responsibility for the mistakes.

It doesn't matter if they accept responsibility or not; they don't
have a choice. What you call social peace is the relative quiescence
of coercion. You're denying class struggle in all of this.

& any social theory is falsifiable. Marx wasn't Hari Seldon.

[chazwin]

On May 18, 3:33 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And my question is -- as far as I can tell if you don't know which
> dispensation you are living in, in the Bible - you believe in the
> redistribution of wealth from the few to the many?  Isn't this Communism?
>
> Does the Catholic church preach communism?

no, quite the opposite. the Vatican is the richest city on earth and
wants to keep it that way.

[Max]

Any form of unrepresentative totalitariansim is anathema to the notion
of individual freedoms. If people don't have basic freedoms, they will
rebel. I wouldn't dare to suggest I know much about the works of Marx
or Engels, I don't, however the practical implementation of communism
has failed in every society that has adopted it, either in a pure or
variant expression of same.

Any country that denies political opposition or operates as a single
party state, is flawed and will not have the full support of the
people ever.

Democracy, pragmatism, corporate regulation, international labour
laws, cross border labour reforms, restrictions of global capital used
for speculation, the promotion of secularity in government and
government policy....I could go on.

These are the things that people want.

[chazwin]

On May 19, 3:56 am, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> Any form of unrepresentative totalitariansim is anathema to the notion
> of individual freedoms. If people don't have basic freedoms, they will
> rebel. I wouldn't dare to suggest I know much about the works of Marx
> or Engels, I don't, however the practical implementation of communism
> has failed in every society that has adopted it, either in a pure or
> variant expression of same.

Have you ever come across an example of a bad description: a thing
claiming to be one thing, but being something else?
Such is the case for Marx's vision which thought to be the means on
production in the hands of the workers.
This has NEVER happened. Revolutionary promises may have invigorated
popular revolt, but once gained, the power in the hands of the leaders
of the revolution was never let go of.
Power in the hands of the state which exemplified Russia, China, Korea
etc etc etc produced 'state capitalism' where the monopoly of
production and power were separated from the people. This is the exact
opposite of "communism", it was not a variant, but a bastardisation.

>
> Any country that denies political opposition or operates as a single
> party state, is flawed and will not have the full support of the
> people ever.

True and the exact opposite of the vision of Marx.

>
> Democracy, pragmatism, corporate regulation, international labour
> laws, cross border labour reforms, restrictions of global capital used
> for speculation, the promotion of secularity in government and
> government policy....I could go on.

How about the means of production residing in the hands of the the
workers, and not an elite few?
Is that an aspiration?

> ...
>
> read more »

[JTB]

That only works if the workers are motivated in the same way as the elite few. Otherwise you have some living off the work of others. Any attempt to distribute reward according to effort requires an overseer (and thus an elite) to monitor the situation. Place the power into the hands of the group and you have an oligarchy grow up from within (the dominant persuading the weaker willed) or a mechanism for discrimination against the unpopular. It is a sad consequence of the fact that everyone's motivations are different.

So it is hard to see how Communism in its pure form can ever work unless everyone involved is an altruist.
 

[xeno]

On May 18, 7:56 pm, Max <ass...@pcfin.net> wrote:
> Any form of unrepresentative totalitariansim is anathema to the notion
> of individual freedoms. If people don't have basic freedoms, they will
> rebel.

Rebelling takes organization to be effective. To be effective you're
going to have to get control over what you're rebelling against. That
means you're going to have to restrict somebody's freedom. Is the
right to exploit people a basic "freedom" you want to uphold? Are you
oppose to restricting the restriction on exploiters? Housing is a
basic need. If people can't afford a house or afford the rent, is that
a basic freedom they don't have? Do they have a right to rebel as
oppose to beg?

> Any country that denies political opposition or operates as a single
> party state, is flawed and will not have the full support of the
> people ever.

Using your implied def. of flawed, all states are flawed. Why? Because
all governments are dictatorships. A state that has the full support
of everybody under its control is a utopian idea.

> Democracy, pragmatism, corporate regulation, international labour
> laws, cross border labour reforms, restrictions of global capital used
> for speculation, the promotion of secularity in government and
> government policy....I could go on.
>
> These are the things that people want.

The key word up there is pragmatism. Under this system, reforms are
desirable but they ultimately won't solve the problems that create the
need for them.

[xeno]

On May 19, 2:19 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Power in the hands of the state which exemplified Russia, China, Korea
> etc etc etc produced 'state capitalism' where the monopoly of
> production and power were separated from the people. This is the exact
> opposite of "communism", it was not a variant, but a bastardisation.

Exactly. & so there's the contradiction. If you're oppose to state
capitalism because "the monopoly of production & power [is] separated
from the people" why would you not be oppose to the same conditions
elsewhere? Marx was not Hari Seldon.

[ynot]

On May 19, 2:24 am, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For whom? Any government is a dictatorship & under capitalism, it's a
> dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
>

Solution: anarchism, no rulers.
Less rulers = less politicians = less corruption.
The day we get rid of politicians is a day that will be remembered for
ever. I'm in a 3rd. world country and we here think that our
politicians are a joke. But then we look at what some of them do in
the "civilized world" and we just fall off our seats. Can someone tell
me how to put a video in this forum for all of us to see what are
politicians? This one from a "civilized" country. No matter what kind
of economic or social philosophy/policy a country adopts, while that
is controlled by politicians, there is no hope: capitalism, communism
all are good opportunities for a politician to get rich. Anarchism is
the solution.

Tony

[xeno]

On May 20, 11:34 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For whom? Any government is a dictatorship & under capitalism, it's a
> > dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
>
> Solution: anarchism, no rulers.
> Less rulers = less politicians = less corruption.

No, that's not possible because eventually, if not immediately, groups
will form that will predominate over others. That's why you need
government in the first place. So, it's not a question of not having a
dictatorship but what group is going to predominate. & according to
communist theory, that should be the working class. At any rate, we
live under capitalism so you already have a prime example of what
anarchy is about. Look at the market. Big fish eat little little
fish.

[Simon Ewins]

[ynot]

> On May 19, 2:24 am, xeno<69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> For whom? Any government is a dictatorship& under capitalism, it's a

>> dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
>>
>
> Solution: anarchism, no rulers.
> Less rulers = less politicians = less corruption.

= less free barbecues.

Better rethink this.


--
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
[Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, 1872]

[JTB]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 19, 2:24 am, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For whom? Any government is a dictatorship & under capitalism, it's a
> dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
>

Solution: anarchism, no rulers.
Less rulers = less politicians = less corruption.
The day we get rid of politicians is a day that will be remembered for
ever. I'm in a 3rd. world country and we here think that our
politicians are a joke. But then we look at what some of them do in
the "civilized world" and we just fall off our seats. Can someone tell
me how to put a video in this forum for all of us to see what are
politicians? This one from a "civilized" country. No matter what kind
of economic or social philosophy/policy a country adopts, while that
is controlled by politicians, there is no hope: capitalism, communism
all are good opportunities for a politician to get rich. Anarchism is
the solution.

Tony

Just like those fine anarchists who bombed a bank recently?

Let me tell you a secret:

You are only partly right.

As a former elected politician here is the steps that I have seen many follow:

1) Person gets annoyed with stupid politicians
2) Becomes a politician to fix the *obvious* problems
3) To get elected, must make promises to certain groups large enough to make a difference...promises usually are slightly different than what the individual would have done alone
4) They are elected by many different people, each of whom has a different opinion of what they think the politician will change
5) Ambitious politician begins to try to make *sensible* changes
6) Is blocked by older politicians who know the game better
7) Is blocked by unelected administration who know the rules and quote them to the newcomer (sometimes out of context)
8) Is blocked by special groups whose power makes the newcomer uncertain
9) Is blocked by very supporters who elected him/her because they only like half of the changes
10) Persistence gets some small changes through
11) Is insulted by former supporters who did not imagine those changes would take place/should have been first/were the best
12) Is insulted by rivals who pretend they were supporters
13) Is misquoted in the media and so learns to say nothing meaningful when interviewed
14) Is shown the potential legal consequences of seemingly intelligent reforms
15) Is confronted by the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) principle in which any policy must account for the stupidest individual alive so as to avoid legal problems (i.e. there can be no sharp corners in life)
16) Finds that he/she is spending hours of volunteer time and getting nowhere
17) Finds that every cost-saving measure has negative consequences in the press or because of the LCD or because of rivals
18) Eventually realizes that no personal sacrifices resulting in cost savings are appreciated and that said cost savings are miniscule
19) Eventually starts to take advantage of the perks of office like everyone else due to burn-out
20) Years later, realizes they are now part of the problem they set out to solve and so quits...
 
Yes, it is a stupid system.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[ynot]

On May 20, 9:50 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, that's not possible because eventually, if not immediately, groups
> will form that will predominate over others.

The moment somebody dominates others, anarchism stops. Anarchism = no
rulers, be that individuals or groups.

> That's why you need government in the first place.

We need a government to tell us what to do (whatever it is convenient
for them) and to wast our money and resources. The government gets
richer and we stay as we are, if not worse off. Whether in a
capitalist or communist society the result is the same. Government =
CORRUPTION = wast.

> So, it's not a question of not having a
> dictatorship but what group is going to predominate. & according to
> communist theory, that should be the working class. At any rate, we
> live under capitalism so  you already have a prime example of what
> anarchy is about. Look at the market. Big fish eat little little
> fish.

There is no way you can compare our current (or any) capitalistic
society to anarchism. They are poles apart. Many capitalists consider
themselves anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) because they oppose the
government, as the anarchists do. They are no anarchists for sure. The
problem is the capitalists want the government out of the way to do as
they please and to exploit the people. See what happen with the
current financial crisis initiated in the Regan times, when he said
"the problem is the government" and then started remove regulations
from the market. To create a "free market" he said. Free my foot, not
to us the people. That was a carte blanche for all the banks to do
what they did: exploit the masses and sink the all world into a
crises, while the big fish just swam away, very happy. You feel the
pinch, I also do, but the bankers are all happy and getting ready for
the next trip (salaries and bonus of US$ 40 and 50 and 60 million a
year for the CEO was not uncommon). Also remember that anarchism does
not mean "no regulations". You can compare the current capitalist
system to anarchism, if you mean chaos. Anarchism politically is far
from chaos. In fact what we have is also not much capitalism either,
it is more a "crookism". I agree with your last statement "Big fish
eat little little fish." Very true. Because a "government" allows it.

Tony

[ynot]

On May 20, 11:13 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [ynot]
>
> > On May 19, 2:24 am, xeno<69black...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> For whom? Any government is a dictatorship&  under capitalism, it's a
> >> dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
>
> > Solution: anarchism, no rulers.
> > Less rulers = less politicians = less corruption.
>
> = less free barbecues.
>
> Better rethink this.

Sorry Simon, didn't get your meaning.

Tony.

[Simon Ewins]

[ynot]

>>> Solution: anarchism, no rulers.
>>> Less rulers = less politicians = less corruption.
>>
>> = less free barbecues.
>>
>> Better rethink this.
>
> Sorry Simon, didn't get your meaning.

Politicians in North America are always holding free barbecues to get
'closer' to their constituents. Free food is always a bummer to lose.

;)

--
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

"It"s very strange when the life you never had flashes before your eyes."
[Terri Minsky, Sex and the City, The Baby Shower]

[ynot]

On May 20, 11:38 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just like those fine anarchists who bombed a bank recently?

And unlike many CEO's of banks that did not bomb any bank, but got
away with many, many more millions, because they, the CEO's, had good
buddies amongst politicians and the government. Some of those banks
even got money from the Government (the people) to finance the payout
to the directors.

>
> Let me tell you a secret:
>
> You are only partly right.
>
> As a former elected politician here is the steps that I have seen many
> follow:
>

>

> Yes, it is a stupid system.

I rest my case.

Tony

[JTB]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 11:38 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just like those fine anarchists who bombed a bank recently?

And unlike many CEO's of banks that did not bomb any bank, but got
away with many, many more millions, because they, the CEO's, had good
buddies amongst politicians and the government. Some of those banks
even got money from the Government (the people) to finance the payout
to the directors.

Yeah, but the point being is that if anarchy reigned would people just feel free to run around blowing things up that they didn't agree with instead of sitting down and trying to solve the problem lucidly?
 

>
> Let me tell you a secret:
>
> You are only partly right.
>
> As a former elected politician here is the steps that I have seen many
> follow:
>

>

> Yes, it is a stupid system.

I rest my case.

Tony

Hey, I went to a lot of work to make my 20 point list and you just snipped it without even the courtesy of a <snip>...that's...that's...anarchistic, if you ask me!
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[xeno]

On May 20, 3:24 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no way you can compare our current (or any) capitalistic
> society to anarchism.

You provide an example below.

> See what happen with the
> current financial crisis initiated in the Regan times, when he said
> "the problem is the government" and then started remove regulations
> from the market. To create a "free market" he said. Free my foot, not
> to us the people. That was a carte blanche for all the banks to do

> what they did...

That in a nutshell is the anarchy of capitalism.

[ynot]

On May 21, 12:51 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but the point being is that if anarchy reigned would people just feel
> free to run around blowing things up that they didn't agree with instead of
> sitting down and trying to solve the problem lucidly?

I am talking about political anarchism, not social chaos which many
people tend to confuse. As you know well, political anarchism does not
advocate chaos. Political anarchism can only work in a society that is
very educated and matured politically. Besides the European Nordic
countries, I do not see this to work anywhere in the world, due to the
immaturity of the populations. Once a country achieves that high level
of education/maturity, I do not see their people blowing banks just
because they don’t like the CEO.

>
> Hey, I went to a lot of work to make my 20 point list and you just snipped
> it without even the courtesy of a <snip>...that's...that's...anarchistic, if
> you ask me!
>

Sorry, it was 1am here and I had to go to bed; I was falling asleep
over the kbd. I will try my best to debate you or to address all those
points, or some of them, a bit latter on.

Tony

[chazwin]

On May 19, 5:39 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

It does actually work

Otherwise you have some living off the work of others.

That is called capitalism

Any attempt to
> distribute reward according to effort requires an overseer (and thus an
> elite) to monitor the situation.

Nope - just legislation to enable the process.

Place the power into the hands of the group
> and you have an oligarchy grow up from within (the dominant persuading the
> weaker willed) or a mechanism for discrimination against the unpopular.

Depends on its constitution

It
> is a sad consequence of the fact that everyone's motivations are different.

Relevance?

>
> So it is hard to see how Communism in its pure form can ever work unless
> everyone involved is an altruist.

No, it can work because of good old self interest.
You aint getting this are you.

[chazwin]

On May 19, 7:49 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 2:19 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Power in the hands of the state which exemplified Russia, China, Korea
> > etc etc etc produced 'state capitalism' where the monopoly of
> > production and power were separated from the people. This is the exact
> > opposite of "communism", it was not a variant, but a bastardisation.
>
> Exactly. & so there's the contradiction. If you're oppose to state
> capitalism because "the monopoly of production & power [is] separated
> from the people" why would you not be oppose to the same conditions
> elsewhere? Marx was not Hari Seldon.

No, but Hari Seldon was Marx's pupil. But seldon was not interested in
bringing about a socialist revolution. For that you need Jean Luc
Pickard.

[ynot]

On May 21, 1:09 am, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That in a nutshell is the anarchy of capitalism.
>

Yes, you are right if you refer to anarchy as chaos. Once again I
bring up the difference between political anarchism (no leader) and
social chaos (another meaning for anarchy). It is not possible to have
the current situation of the financial world in a true anarchic
society. There are some ways that a population of a country can
purchase its daily goods without the need of a bank to finance its
basic needs: to buy food. The most important of them is off course
SAVING some money now, and then buying what you want latter on,
without any interest, bank charges, etc. It looks to me that the word
SAVING is becoming foreign in the modern world. You know well that now
a day’s people are buying food on credit. I can not comprehend how can
our leaders (all over the world) allowed a situation like that to
develop. The food is so expensive as it is, now add the interest, the
fees, the standard bank charges, the penalties, you name it, and soon
we can't afford to buy food. People are spending their earnings of
next year or two, today. Many already blew up the salary that they
will earn (if they are not retrenched) in the next 3 or 4 years. Every
company now a day’s has a credit card for you to buy whatever from
their stores, on credit. Off course the banks are all happy to
finance that; more interest in their books. This I call it, and I take
it that you too, capitalist “chaos”. They do as they please, the
government lets them; in fact helps them. Do you remember the comment
of Alan Greenspan when he reported to the USA Senate or Congress: he
said that with hindsight it probably was not the best decision to
allow the financial companies to behave the way they did and to keep
interest rates at so tempting low levels. In other words, de-
regulation was the source of most of the problems all the world is
facing now. You do not have that in an anarchic (no leader) society.

Read this if you are interested:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/

Tony

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

So it is hard to see how Communism in its pure form can ever work unless everyone involved is an altruist.

<hops out of the peanut gallery>

Not a single form of Communism through history has ever worked including primitive communalism.

If it did we would be a communist society today.

It's not like it hasn't been tried repeatedly in a vast number of forms.

<hops back into the peanut gallery>

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

"You're still the goofy Canadian Maharanicess Pseudo Pagan-Priestess
Princess of AvC." --fundy xtian Chris of AvC

"Dear GodMocking Maggot" --TrueChristian

[TLC]

Trance,

As Capitalism been working?

Firstly, all the revolutionary states were socialist and aspiring
towards communism and their undemocratic, miserable capitalist systems
were not working better for the people before their revolutions.

From a Marxist perspective it's possible to say that industrial
countries should have been the first socialist countries, but even
with that one can to say that socialism still pulled forward and
advanced, (against all the non-stop assaults by capitalist regimes),
semi-feudal countries like Russia, China etc, more than capitalism has
ever done in advancing a country and bettering its peoples condition.

Look in your own country, do you think that the health services etc,
were products of capitalism or came from socialist inspiration?

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Trance,

As Capitalism been working?

Yes. It's not perfect but it's proven to be the best we've got.
 

Firstly, all the revolutionary states were socialist and aspiring
towards communism and their undemocratic, miserable capitalist systems
were not working better for the people before their revolutions.

Meaningless rhetoric.

The "proletariat" lived in abject poverty lining up for basics like coats and bread while the members of the Communist Party lived lives of privilege.
 

From a Marxist perspective it's possible to say that industrial
countries should have been the first socialist countries, but even
with that one can to say that socialism still pulled forward and
advanced, (against all the non-stop assaults by capitalist regimes),
semi-feudal countries like Russia, China etc, more than capitalism has
ever done in advancing a country and bettering its peoples condition.

You mean moving ahead like the massive almost irreversible pollution of the Volga, the Romanian orphanages where children lived miserable deprived abused lives, the gross violations of civil rights by psychiatrically institutionalizing dissenters, etc.?

Progress like that?
 

Look in your own country, do you think that the health services etc,
were products of capitalism or came from socialist inspiration?

Sure, they were socialist inspired but were implemented in a capitalist state.

Which is why they work. Although they need some work now if we want to maintain them.

[ynot]

On May 21, 12:51 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Hey, I went to a lot of work to make my 20 point list and you just snipped
> it without even the courtesy of a <snip>...that's...that's...anarchistic, if
> you ask me!

No, not anarchism; just too late and too tired after a long day.
However, here it goes:

> As a former elected politician here is the steps that I have seen many
> follow:

Is this just an hypothetical scenario or were you a politician?

> 1) Person gets annoyed with stupid politicians

The vast majority; by far.

> 2) Becomes a politician to fix the *obvious* problems
> 3) To get elected, must make promises to certain groups large enough to
> make a difference...

To make a “difference” to the bank account of that particular
political party. That is the aim of any political party/politician:
they only care about the big fish, the ones with loads of money to
donate to the party. The people on the ground, with small donations
don’t count that much.

> promises usually are slightly different than what
> the individual would have done alone
> 4) They are elected by many different people, each of whom has a
> different opinion of what they think the politician will change
> 5) Ambitious politician begins to try to make *sensible* changes
> 6) Is blocked by older politicians who know the game better

In other words: they are already “owned” by big corporations.

> 7) Is blocked by unelected administration who know the rules and quote
> them to the newcomer (sometimes out of context)

The rules been, how much he can profit if he toes the line.

> 8) Is blocked by special groups whose power makes the newcomer
> uncertain
> 9) Is blocked by very supporters who elected him/her because they only
> like half of the changes

1) the big fishes realises that they backed the wrong horse, now they
try to find another one to protect their interests.
2) the small fish (the gullible ones) start to believe in the campaign
of the newcomers backed by big TV ads. and loads of propaganda in
newspapers (paid for by the big fish)

> 10) Persistence gets some small changes through
> 11) Is insulted by former supporters who did not imagine those changes > would take place/should have been first/were the best
> 12) Is insulted by rivals who pretend they were supporters
> 13) Is misquoted in the media and so learns to say nothing meaningful
> when interviewed

Guess who starts that media campaign?

> 14) Is shown the potential legal consequences of seemingly intelligent
> reforms
> 15) Is confronted by the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) principle in
> which any policy must account for the stupidest individual alive so as to
> avoid legal problems (i.e. there can be no sharp corners in life)

In a third world country that normally is accompanied by a
hand.............. with a loaded gun.

> 16) Finds that he/she is spending hours of volunteer time and getting
> nowhere
> 17) Finds that every cost-saving measure has negative consequences in
> the press or because of the LCD or because of rivals
> 18) Eventually realizes that no personal sacrifices resulting in cost
> savings are appreciated and that said cost savings are miniscule
> 19) Eventually starts to take advantage of the perks of office like
> everyone else due to burn-out
> 20) Years later, realizes they are now part of the problem they set out > to solve and so quits...

> Yes, it is a stupid system.

So true. Just an extract from “An Anarchist FAQ” regarding how a
society is run:
“”So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass
assemblies of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate
and co-operative conflict between equals, with purely administrative
tasks being handled by elected committees. These committees would be
made up of mandated, recallable and temporary delegates who carry out
their tasks under the watchful eyes of the assembly which elected
them. Thus in an anarchist society, "we'll look after our affairs
ourselves and decide what to do about them. And when, to put our ideas
into action, there is a need to put someone in charge of a project,
we'll tell them to do [it] in such and such a way and no other . . .
nothing would be done without our decision. So our delegates, instead
of people being individuals whom we've given the right to order us
about, would be people . . . [with] no authority, only the duty to
carry out what everyone involved wanted." [Errico Malatesta, Fra
Contadini, p. 34] “”

I like that part: “…nothing would be done without our decision.”

In case this is a matter that interests you, please read it all in:
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI

Tony

[TLC]

Trance,

You do talk a load of crap. So, "The "proletariat" lived in abject

poverty lining up for basics like coats and bread while the members of

the Communist Party lived lives of privilege." Sounds like you are
really into meaningless rhetoric!

Strange, having been in many of the socialist states I never saw this
washed out Trot perspective of life. But, then unlike you, I don't
miss out and forget all the long civil wars, or the millions of deaths
caused by capitalist world wars, nor the trade restrictions and
financed internal attacks by capitalist countries they suffered and
they came through.

Are you saying capitalism would have advanced these countries and
bettered their condition?

If you really are concerned about massive pollution, orphanages where
children live miserable deprived abused lives, the gross violations of
civil rights etc. Why not look at capitalist controlled Asia, Africa
and South America?

Try to remember that civil rights are quite new to most of North
America, and they weren't given by capitalism, which is now doing it's
best to restrict them.





On May 21, 2:41 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Trance,

You do talk a load of crap.  So, "The "proletariat" lived in abject

poverty lining up for basics like coats and bread while the members of

the Communist Party lived lives of privilege."  Sounds like you are
really into meaningless rhetoric!

Except for the fact that it was true.

<snipped communist propaganda>

> >Try to remember that civil rights are quite new to most of North

America, and they weren't given by capitalism, which is now doing it's
best to restrict them.

Civil rights were demanded by people and were given *and* respected in most capitalist countries in Europe and the West.

Too bad, communist countries refused to follow suit and that says a lot about communism and it's so-call "defense" of the "masses". 

[JTB]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:20 AM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 21, 12:51 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but the point being is that if anarchy reigned would people just feel
> free to run around blowing things up that they didn't agree with instead of
> sitting down and trying to solve the problem lucidly?

I am talking about political anarchism, not social chaos which many
people tend to confuse.

Yes, I was confusing the two...
 

As you know well, political anarchism does not
advocate chaos. Political anarchism can only work in a society that is
very educated and matured politically. Besides the European Nordic
countries, I do not see this to work anywhere in the world, due to the
immaturity of the populations. Once a country achieves that high level
of education/maturity, I do not see their people blowing banks just
because they don’t like the CEO.

Of course, but then they allow one pesky little immature immigrant in (or one home-grown moron) and their whole system is wide open.
 

>
> Hey, I went to a lot of work to make my 20 point list and you just snipped
> it without even the courtesy of a <snip>...that's...that's...anarchistic, if
> you ask me!
>

Sorry, it was 1am here and I had to go to bed; I was falling asleep
over the kbd. I will try my best to debate you or to address all those
points, or some of them, a bit latter on.

I was actually just teasing you, but seeing that you did respond to them, I will too...
 

Tony

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[JTB]

Where?
 

Otherwise you have some living off the work of others.

That is called capitalism

Actually, that is all systems...the only difference being who the *ones living off the others* are:

In Capitalism (in its impure form) it is those with Capital exploiting those without...
In Communism (in its impure form) it is those with Power exploiting those without...
In Socialism (in any form) it is those who are Least Productive exploiting those who are more so...

Take your pick...
 

 Any attempt to
> distribute reward according to effort requires an overseer (and thus an
> elite) to monitor the situation.

Nope - just legislation to enable the process.

No. It takes *someone* to oversee that the legislation is applied properly (or improperly, according to their leanings). Coming up with the idea of how it *should* work is easy, but seeing it through requires overseers...unless everyone is a mature altruist...
 

 Place the power into the hands of the group
> and you have an oligarchy grow up from within (the dominant persuading the
> weaker willed) or a mechanism for discrimination against the unpopular.

Depends on its constitution

It
> is a sad consequence of the fact that everyone's motivations are different.

Relevance?

I like to bemoan the state of the world's affairs...don't you?
 

[JTB]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

So it is hard to see how Communism in its pure form can ever work unless everyone involved is an altruist.

<hops out of the peanut gallery>

Not a single form of Communism through history has ever worked including primitive communalism.

If it did we would be a communist society today.

It's not like it hasn't been tried repeatedly in a vast number of forms.

<hops back into the peanut gallery>

Haha...thanks Trance ;-)
 

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

"You're still the goofy Canadian Maharanicess Pseudo Pagan-Priestess
Princess of AvC." --fundy xtian Chris of AvC

"Dear GodMocking Maggot" --TrueChristian

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[JTB]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:07 AM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 21, 12:51 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, I went to a lot of work to make my 20 point list and you just snipped
> it without even the courtesy of a <snip>...that's...that's...anarchistic, if
> you ask me!

No, not anarchism; just too late and too tired after a long day.
However, here it goes:

I forgive you ;-)
 

> As a former elected politician here is the steps that I have seen many
> follow:

Is this just an hypothetical scenario or were you a politician?

I was elected to two terms in office...
 

> 1) Person gets annoyed with stupid politicians

The vast majority; by far.

I was too...
 

> 2) Becomes a politician to fix the *obvious* problems
> 3) To get elected, must make promises to certain groups large enough to
> make a difference...

To make a “difference” to the bank account of that particular
political party. That is the aim of any political party/politician:
they only care about the big fish, the ones with loads of money to
donate to the party. The people on the ground, with small donations
don’t count that much.

It isn't that cynical really. What actually happens is it boils down to time and practicality. When dealing with individuals, each one wants something slightly different and so it is far more difficult to meet and communicate with each one as an individual. What happens instead is one appeals to a block of them who are actively involved (in the community, business, politics, etc.) while also trying to hear the many other individual voices making up the background. It is difficult to turn away an offer to help from an organized group (say in canvasing or fund raising, etc.) when one is strapped for time and money, starting out fresh. It is only after the innocent offers of help that slight suggestions of how terrible this or that is come along--with the underlying assumption that you will do something about such things.
 

> promises usually are slightly different than what
> the individual would have done alone
> 4) They are elected by many different people, each of whom has a
> different opinion of what they think the politician will change
> 5) Ambitious politician begins to try to make *sensible* changes
> 6) Is blocked by older politicians who know the game better

In other words: they are already “owned” by big corporations.

Not in my experience...usually the advice comes from those who used to be idealists (like the newcomer), but have realized the game is more complicated than that because *every* seemingly positive change has a extra helping of negatives attached that just can't be foreseen at this stage.

It's like the old analogy of animal control in a small town:

Dogs are running astray and posing a nuisance so a by-law is drawn up to solve the problem...
But now that the movement of dogs is restricted, dog owners complain about the cats roving about...
To be fair, a new law is drawn up to deal with the cats...
But now foxes, which used to be kept out of town by the dogs, start proving a problem...
Trapping and removing the foxes now results in a multiplying of the stray cats that the foxes used to control...
Trapping and removing the stray cats is expensive and creates a dilemma of how to humanely deal with so many...
The removal of the stray cats leads to an infestation of mice...
And on and on the fable goes...
 
Senior politicians have already covered the ground that the newcomer thinks he is the first to have noticed and want to avoid a repeat of the same problems...

> 7) Is blocked by unelected administration who know the rules and quote
> them to the newcomer (sometimes out of context)

The rules been, how much he can profit if he toes the line.

The rules being how much liability he can subject the region he is governing to if he tries to save costs or tries to do things differently...
 

> 8) Is blocked by special groups whose power makes the newcomer
> uncertain
> 9) Is blocked by very supporters who elected him/her because they only
> like half of the changes

1) the big fishes realises that they backed the wrong horse, now they
try to find another one to protect their interests.
2) the small fish (the gullible ones) start to believe in the campaign
of the newcomers backed by big TV ads. and loads of propaganda in
newspapers (paid for by the big fish)

Or they just have a common level of agreement with the changes until suddenly they go one step further than planned. For example a large group clamoring to create a public park all agree in the idea of the park, but start to really disagree on what percentage should be set aside for sports/recreation, what percentage should just be left to nature, what percentage should be paved for parking...etc.
 

> 10) Persistence gets some small changes through
> 11) Is insulted by former supporters who did not imagine those changes > would take place/should have been first/were the best
> 12) Is insulted by rivals who pretend they were supporters
> 13) Is misquoted in the media and so learns to say nothing meaningful
> when interviewed

Guess who starts that media campaign?

Sometimes it is just a negative reporter or a slow news day that needs sprucing up...a comment meant to address one issue is misinterpreted (purposefully?) to suggest another. One example I recall was a politician being asked if cuts to a given budget could lead to the closure of a school. It was a hypothetical question and so the the politician responded honestly, "Well, yes, if its enrollment declined sufficiently and a study concluded that it would be more feasible to bus students to other nearby institutions...we will be looking at all areas where we can be more efficient..."

The headlines the next day? "[Politician] Considers School Closure!" Utter nonsense as such was never really the spirit of the question or answer, but so much energy went into refuting the claim that even if it had made sense to close the school it could not be done as the issue had become political. The long-term result was a retreat from publicly exploring all sensible areas where cuts could be made and ultimately a deficit.
 

> 14) Is shown the potential legal consequences of seemingly intelligent
> reforms
> 15) Is confronted by the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) principle in
> which any policy must account for the stupidest individual alive so as to
> avoid legal problems (i.e. there can be no sharp corners in life)

In a third world country that normally is accompanied by a
hand.............. with a loaded gun.

Yikes!
 

I will do so...this is more of my liking than I thought it would be. Especially given our technological ability to vote via the internet as a populace it seems almost doable...but what happens if there is a major event (war or disaster)? Who takes charge and meets with other nations with the proper level of authority on everyone's behalf?
 

Tony

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[xeno]

On May 21, 2:14 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, but Hari Seldon was Marx's pupil. But seldon was not interested in
> bringing about a socialist revolution. For that you need Jean Luc
> Pickard.

What? "We need a communist revolution. Make it so"? No mass line,
there.

[xeno]

On May 21, 6:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "proletariat" lived in abject poverty lining up for basics like coats
> and bread while the members of the Communist Party lived lives of privilege.

Unlike here in the US where the proletariat in abject poverty have to
debate with themselves whether they should buy food or pay the rent.
Don't give me the spiel abt welfare or workfare. That does not pay the
market rate rent. (Seems to me that if you want productive citizens
you wouldn't force them to live in substandard housing.) OK, you can
always take potshots at the contradictions in the Soviet state-
capitalist regime. You can always refute what you call No-True
Scotsman arguments when other people point out that the Soviets had
phony communism. Just remember that the need for socialism is created
by the very system we live under. It's all good & well to say this is
the best system we got because its the system that imposes itself on
us. Why don't you take your "brilliant" deductions & come up with some
real solutions here besides red-baiting. Or is it that you just want
to maintain your privileges? & whatever happens to the vast majority
of folks out there is really not your concern.

[xeno]

On May 21, 7:54 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Except for the fact that it was true.

& yet you're being selective abt the truth you want to tell abt abject
poverty. Why go half way here? Call it propaganda but just what do you
think you're slinging here & why. Do you really care abt the masses or
do you just care abt your privileges? & what you can get under this
system regardless of *its* expense to the rest of the world?

> Civil rights were demanded by people and were given *and* respected in most
> capitalist countries in Europe and the West.

How you figure that when most women, for example, still get paid less
than a man does for the same motherfucking job?! Come on.

[xeno]

On May 21, 4:05 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The food is so expensive as it is, now add the interest, the
> fees, the standard bank charges, the penalties, you name it, and soon
> we can't afford to buy food.

So why ask why people buy food on credit? How are you going to usurp
the power of the banks? How can you organize against this oppression
without leadership?

[JTB]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 21, 6:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "proletariat" lived in abject poverty lining up for basics like coats
> and bread while the members of the Communist Party lived lives of privilege.

Unlike here in the US where the proletariat in abject poverty have to
debate with themselves whether they should buy food or pay the rent.
Don't give me the spiel abt welfare or workfare. That does not pay the
market rate rent. (Seems to me that if you want productive citizens
you wouldn't force them to live in substandard housing.)

Yeah, and one reason rents are high is because many renters trash the place they rent because they do not value the property of others...some don't pay the rent either and have to be evicted *after* trashing the place...these keep many would-be landlords out of the business from bad experiences...driving costs up...the door swings both ways...
 

OK, you can
always take potshots at the contradictions in the Soviet state-
capitalist regime. You can always refute what you call No-True
Scotsman arguments when other people point out that the Soviets had
phony communism. Just remember that the need for socialism is created
by the very system we live under. It's all good & well to say this is
the best system we got because its the system that imposes itself on
us. Why don't you take your "brilliant" deductions & come up with some
real solutions here besides red-baiting. Or is it that you just want
to maintain your privileges?  & whatever happens to the vast majority
of folks out there is really not your concern.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[ynot]

On May 21, 10:44 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So why ask why people buy food on credit?

You are fed this lifestyle story over and over again. You take the
bait and get a credit card to buy appliances from a store on credit.
In fact you only want a washing machine, nothing else. The salesman
sells you what you asked (on credit, pay only $39 a month for a year)
He then talks you into buying the tumble drier (on credit another $30
a month). But if you take that flat TV screen it will be only another
$27 a month for 3 years. Come to think of it not that much, so you go
for it. When you leave the store, you signed a monthly commitment of
ONLY $399 a month; no problem, you can make it easily. All this
because you wanted a washing machine. Then, you ear about an SUV on
special and you fall for it. Another $500 for 5 years. All of the
sudden your salary in hardly enough to pay all those LITTLE
commitments that you got into. You already own 10 credit cards and you
start drawing from one to pay for the other (flying kites as they call
it; a criminal offence here in South Africa, but many do it). One
month you are a bit short and you decide to buy food (just once) on
credit also. It's only another $9.99 a month for 6 months. Not much,
and it is the groceries for the full month. Good deal. When you
notice, you are insolvent, you hardly can afford to pay the loan for
the apartment, your electricity bill. Your bank has a brilliant idea
and advises you to re-finance the apartment. In fact you start to
borrow from Peter to pay Paul (and the bank). I am sure that you are
aware by now how much money the bank is making with you alone. A lot;
now multiply that for many millions of people like you. That's how the
CEO's and directors of the banks are make a killing out of our
misery.

> How are you going to usurp the power of the banks?

Banks are here to finance companies, business and your house only. The
rest you save and buy for cash. Probably a loan to buy a car, but with
a big deposit of 50% or 60% This way a country will force people to
save and that will build a richer society. There is no way you can get
rich without saving. Even if you make a million with the Lotto and you
spend that in a year, will not make you any richer. You have to save,
invest wisely to became rich. Not feeding the banks. In an anarchic
society the mutual organisations, not banks, take care of the
financing of companies and individuals.

> How can you organize against this oppression without leadership?

Society decides to regulate what loans a bank is allow to make, not
the politicians. Remember the Greenspan story? All done due to
political interests of some individuals, not interests of the society.
The justice department then takes care of the enforcement of those
laws. You do not need a leader to tell you that the banks are screwing
us: anyone with a bit of common sense sees that.

Tony

[JTB]

Aren't mutual organizations that take care of credit called Credit Unions? If people don't like banks they can always deal with those...
 

> How can you organize against this oppression without leadership?

Society decides to regulate what loans a bank is allow to make, not
the politicians. Remember the Greenspan story? All done due to
political interests of some individuals, not interests of the society.
The justice department then takes care of the enforcement of those
laws. You do not need a leader to tell you that the banks are screwing
us: anyone with a bit of common sense sees that.

Tony

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[TLC]

Trance,

You seem to ignore the fact that if we in Europe wish to see "The
"proletariat" in abject
poverty lining up for basics like coats and bread", we look at the
capital of capitalism, the USA, or don't the continuing food kitchens
there count? And don't get mixed up by having seen people lining up
for shortages of goods and people lining up to stop starvation which
we see in capitalist countries.

Now, you're saying capitalism is the best in the world. Does this
mean you approve of the capitalist exploitation of most of the world
people? Or, only that you approve of capitalism as long as you're in
a place to get scraps from its table?

To state that, "Civil rights were demanded by people and were given
*and* respected in most
capitalist countries in Europe and the West." makes me wonder why
people ever formed socialist parties, unionised etc, and took to the
streets and fought for years to obtain human rights, many which are
being taken back by capitalism, when capital is so willing to give up
power and respect working people!!!

Are you also maintaining that the social, economic and political
situation of the people in revolutionary, socialist states would have
been better if they had remained under a capitalist system?

"I am going to fight capitalism even if it kills me. It is wrong that
people like you should be comfortable and well fed while all around
you people are starving." Sylvia Pankhurst





On May 21, 3:54 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[student13]

On May 19, 11:45 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:


> The key word up there is pragmatism. Under this system, reforms are
> desirable but they ultimately won't solve the problems that create the
> need for them.

xeno,

That statement, as I see, is a very meaningful and universal
statement.
And, may be the root cause of any problem. It is so simple, but
still
human beings are not willing to think over this seriously. I do not
understand
why?

cheers
st13

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:17 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Trance,

You seem to ignore the fact that if we in Europe wish to see  "The
"proletariat" in abject
poverty lining up for basics like coats and bread", we look at the
capital of capitalism, the USA, or don't the continuing food kitchens
there count?   And don't get mixed up by having seen people lining up
for shortages of goods and people lining up to stop starvation which
we see in capitalist countries.

Capitalism doesn't pretend to be a system "for the people, by the people, led by people" etc.

Capitalism is what it says it is.

Communism claimed all sorts of "pie in the sky" and ended up with a garbage dump.

Like I said, capitalism isn't perfect but it's definitely been the most workable system so far.
 

Now, you're saying capitalism is the best in the world.  Does this
mean you approve of the capitalist exploitation of most of the world
people?  Or, only that you approve of capitalism as long as you're in
a place to get scraps from its table?

To state that, "Civil rights were demanded by people and were given
*and* respected in most
capitalist countries in Europe and the West." makes me wonder why
people ever formed socialist parties, unionised etc, and took to the
streets and fought for years to obtain human rights, many which are
being taken back by capitalism, when capital is so willing to give up
power and respect working people!!!

People took to the streets because the concept of Civil Rights, Labour Rights, Women's Rights, etc. was new and we had to fight for them.

We got them under Capitalism after fighting for them and yes the Left contributed to that process, in some cases leading it.

Why didn't they get them under Communism?

--

[xeno]

On May 21, 2:07 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, and one reason rents are high is because many renters trash the place
> they rent because they do not value the property of others...some don't pay
> the rent either and have to be evicted *after* trashing the place...these
> keep many would-be landlords out of the business from bad
> experiences...driving costs up...the door swings both ways...

The *primary* reason why rents are high is because that is what the
market will bear. The average income is going to get eaten by +/- 30%
on rent but for poorer people that's going to be higher all the while
paying for what tends to be substandard housing. Living in substandard
housing is dangerous so the people with more money aren't going to try
to save money by living in them.

[xeno]

On May 21, 3:29 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So why ask why people buy food on credit?

> You are fed this lifestyle story over and over again.

Save your breath. The primary reason is because the cost of living is
high. & the economy depends on people spending on consumption even if
it's beyond their means.

> > How are you going to usurp the power of the banks?

> Banks are here to finance companies, business and your house only.

Well, a part of business is paying for labor so that means they're
investing in you, as a seller of labor, as well. & while you're
saving money where are you going to put it? Hoarding money is stupid.
The point of saving is to collect interest and/or invest.

> > How can you organize against this oppression without leadership?

> Society decides to regulate...

& that takes leadership & organization. How are you going to regulate
banks under anarchism?

[xeno]

On May 22, 5:39 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Capitalism doesn't pretend to be a system "for the people, by the people,
> led by people" etc.

& yet you support capitalism for the same reasons you renounce the
corrupt Soviet system.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. What a trick. What do
you do for an encore?

[TLC]

Trance,

Strange of you to use a quote from a capitalist politician, U.S.
President Abraham Lincoln, and a part of the speech so often used by
many more defenders of the capitalist system today, all pretending
that capitalism is "for the people, by the people, led by people" etc.

"Capitalism is what it says it is." Does it? How often does one
hear a capitalist politician say our capitalist are, "The members of
the tiny capitalist class at the top of the hierarchy have an
influence on economy and society far beyond their numbers. They make
investment decisions that open or close employment opportunities for
millions of others.

They contribute money to political parties, (in many ways buying the
politicians they want in power), and they own the media enterprises
that allow them influence over the thinking of other classes... The
capitalist class strives to perpetuate itself: Assets, lifestyles,
values and social networks... are all passed from one generation to
the next." -Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998”

I'm also not sure what you mean by asking why didn't socialist states
give people human and civil rights. Are you implying that the people
of revolutionary, socialist states lost the human rights they had
before the revolution? Or, are you trying to say that the rights of
health, education, political inclusion, employment, equality and
social welfare, etc, didn't exist after a socialist revolution?

Me thinks, you should go to the growing army of unemployed, homeless,
workers and pensioners on reduced incomes, students who can't afford
the growing price of education, the vast number who have to work every
hour they can to stay on the poverty line and the many who thought
they had pension nesteggs which are now being pecked away to keep
capitalism afloat, and so, so many more exploited and ask them about
their human and civil rights under capitalism!!!



On May 22, 1:39 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ynot]

On May 22, 2:39 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Like I said, capitalism isn't perfect

That is a true statement.

> but it's definitely been the most workable system so far.

If you consider the opposition (communism and socialism) that was
forced down the throats of the people, that is not much of an
achievement. Any system imposed on any society is doomed. In any case,
this type of USA capitalism is a bit of a bastard system already,
changed to suit a minority, allowed, and supported by the USA
government. Remember that the current global financial crisis was
started by this system of greed that capitalism allows. They, be that
the capitalists in general, the banks/financial institutions or the
individuals, only looked at today and tomorrow. Next week, month or
year was never in their minds. They wanted to cash in as much as
possible, as fast as they could, because many knew that the gravy
train would come, as it did, to a stop. Consider that in early 60’s
and 70’s the USA was a capitalist society already for many decades. By
then the average salary plus benefits of the CEO and directors of
listed companies, was about 20 times the average of the work force
payout; a disgrace if you ask me. This year that average is close to
100 times. Still capitalist, but greediness went up 5 times, if not
more. How can anyone justify and accept, for instance, a package in a
region of HALF A BILLION dollars for a 5 year period, as Oracle (the
then board of directors) accepted for its CEO? Close to HALF A BILLION
dollars; for 5 only years; did you get that? It takes me double that
time to make that kind of money. (The bastard; beat me hands down). In
an anarchic system this would never happened. The salary of the CEO
and of the directors (or whatever they are called) is controlled by
the owners of the company (a not for profit mutual organisation).
Their pay would be set on a consensus basis by all, not just, as they
do it now, by a decision of the board. Capitalism isn't perfect, but
it's definitely been the most workable system so far, as you said;
and definitely not the only option. In any case whatever that option,
it must be accepted by a vast majority to succeed

Tony

[Trance Gemini]

TLC

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:31 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Trance,

Strange of you to use a quote from a capitalist politician,  U.S.
President Abraham Lincoln, and a part of the speech so often used by
many more defenders of the capitalist system today, all pretending
that capitalism is "for the people, by the people, led by people" etc.

"Capitalism is what it says it is."  Does  it?  How often does one
hear a capitalist politician say our capitalist are,  "The members of
the tiny capitalist class at the top of the hierarchy have an
influence on economy and society far beyond their numbers. They make
investment decisions that open or close employment opportunities for
millions of others.

The wrongs or problems of capitalism are indisputable but do not equate to communism therefore being right, or a better alternative, and that appears to be the only argument you are giving here.
 

They contribute money to political parties, (in many ways buying the
politicians they want in power), and they own the media enterprises
that allow them influence over the thinking of other classes... The
capitalist class strives to perpetuate itself: Assets, lifestyles,
values and social networks... are all passed from one generation to
the next." -Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998”

I'm also not sure what you mean by asking why didn't socialist states
give people human and civil rights.   Are you implying that the people
of revolutionary, socialist states lost the human rights they had
before the revolution?  Or, are you trying to say that the rights of
health, education, political inclusion, employment, equality and
social welfare, etc, didn't exist after a socialist revolution?

Where rights are concerned, the rather *key* problem that the Soviet and other communist countries ignored and abused was the concept of *individual* rights.
 

Me thinks, you should go to the growing army of unemployed, homeless,
workers and pensioners on reduced incomes, students who can't afford
the growing price of education, the vast number who have to work every
hour they can to stay on the poverty line and the many who thought
they had pension nesteggs which are now being pecked away to keep
capitalism afloat, and so, so many more exploited and ask them about
their human and civil rights under capitalism!!!

Thanks but I am currently a member of that group, so I don't need to go there.

The "pie in the sky" of communism did not contribute to the solution of those social problems either.

In Albania, there was a great deal of unemployment before the communist state collapsed under the weight of authoritarianism.

The contribution of the Left in capitalist countries was to push for social reform and the estabishment of a social safety net, which, while not perfect, contributed to the stability of the capitalist system.

[Trance Gemini]

Hi Tony,

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 5:59 AM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 22, 2:39 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Like I said, capitalism isn't perfect

That is a true statement.

> but it's definitely been the most workable system so far.

If you consider the opposition (communism and socialism) that was
forced down the throats of the people, that is not much of an
achievement.

I agree but those were the alternatives.
 

Any system imposed on any society is doomed. In any case,
this type of USA capitalism is a bit of a bastard system already,
changed to suit a minority, allowed, and supported by the USA
government.

Mainly because unlike other countries in the West, the US has never implemented the social safety net that we have in Canada for example or socialized medicine, or some of the regulatory bodies that we have.
 

I'm not really familiar with anarchist politics and economics that people are talking about today so I can't really comment on that.

I have the stereotypical concept of anarchism which is no government, therefore chaos type of thing.

While I've been told that concept is wrong, I don't really understand what people are talking about when they advocate anarchism.

I have libertarian leanings and believe that the government should encroach less in people's lives but also believe that a certain amount of regulation is required (the current issues with the stock market and banking being a case in point).

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

"You're still the goofy Canadian Maharanicess Pseudo Pagan-Priestess
Princess of AvC." --fundy xtian Chris of AvC

"Dear GodMocking Maggot" --TrueChristian

[TLC]

Trance,

You are being very abstract and vague in your defence of capitalism,
in fact. the only arguement you've put forward for capitalism are is
that it must be better than socialism because we know capitalisms
faults!

"In Albania, there was a great deal of unemployment before the

communist state collapsed under the weight of authoritarianism." Let
me put you right. All socialists joked about Albanian type socialism,
even the Chinese who tried to help it and having crossed the border
into Albania it was easy to see why.

But, collapsing "under the weight of authoritarianism."? Which
authoritarian Albania was that? The elections of 1991 which left the
former Communists in power, or the later general strike which led to
the formation of a coalition government that included non-Communists?
But, may be you mean when Albania "collapsed under the weight of
authoritarianism." by having a no communists in government after 1992
elections causing economic collapse and social unrest?

You of course don't mean Albania's collapse "under the weight of
authoritarianism" under the first non-Communist president, Berisha, in
1997. When riots ravaged the country and state institutions
collapsed and an EU military mission led by Italy was sent in to
stabilize the country, do you? Is's so nice to know that everything
is rosey now for Albania, they've kissed the frog and it's turned into
capitalism and they've even joined capitals favorite club
NATO.

On 23 May, 12:35, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TLC
>

[TLC]

Trance,

"I'm not really familiar with anarchist politics and economics".
Don't worry, I don't think most of the many types of anarchist are
familiar with politics and economics!

On 23 May, 12:43, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:54 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Trance,

You are being very abstract and vague in your defence of capitalism,
in fact. the only arguement you've put forward for capitalism are is
that it must be better than socialism because we know capitalisms
faults!

Not at all TLC.

I'm simply saying that capitalism has demonstrated that it works by virtue of the fact that it exists and communism has demonstrated that it doesn't work by virtue of the fact that it doesn't exist for the most part.

I'm also making the point that criticisms of the short comings of capitalism do not constitute evidence or an argument that communism is better.
 

"In Albania, there was a great deal of unemployment before the

communist state collapsed under the weight of authoritarianism."   Let
me put you right.  All socialists joked about Albanian type socialism,
even the Chinese who tried to help it and having crossed the border
into Albania it was easy to see why.

But, collapsing "under the weight of authoritarianism."?   Which
authoritarian Albania was that? The elections of 1991 which left the
former Communists in power, or the later general strike which led to
the formation of a coalition government that included non-Communists?

Why did this happen, TLC? What necessitated it?

[xeno]

On May 23, 2:59 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any system imposed on any society is doomed.

That's a bit of wishful thinking. But in light of it, why would you
say on one hand that capitalism isn't perfect & is corrupt & then
think that it's the best workable system? If you really mean *any*
system then this one is doomed as well.

> Remember that the current global financial crisis was
> started by this system of greed that capitalism allows.

The system of greed is a function of capitalism.

> Consider that in early 60’s
> and 70’s the USA was a capitalist society already for many decades.

You mean plus or minus at least 175 years the basis of which,
established by the American Revolution.

> Capitalism isn't perfect...

So what are you saying? Let's keep a system you admit is fucking
people up just because you can't think of anything better? Or let's
keep a system that's fucked up but you can at least get something out
of it as long as we can keep its bad effects from affecting you? Your
anger seems a bit self-serving here.

[xeno]

On May 23, 9:20 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm simply saying that capitalism has demonstrated that it works by virtue
> of the fact that it exists and communism has demonstrated that it doesn't
> work by virtue of the fact that it doesn't exist for the most part.

OK. Let's take this def. you put forth out here. Something that exists
works. Something that doesn't, doesn't work. That's tautological if
exists & works imply one another, that is, to have functions of
vitality & to have activity to perform something. Alright, you can
debate about that, but there's one big glaring boo-boo here. China is
suppose to be a communist country, right? (I would say phony
communism, but let's put that aside.) China represents, what, 1.3
billion people? 20% of the world population in one place lives under a
system you say doesn't exist for the most part. The only way that
would work would be for you to argue that China is not really a
communist country. If it isn't then what is really going on there?

[ynot]

On May 22, 8:51 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 3:29 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Save your breath.
Not by a long shot I will accept this situation of the capitalist
enterprises exploiting the masses. I am not a revolutionary nor an
activist, but every time I have a chance of exposing what is going on,
I do it with a passion. In the last 20 years or so, I probably
"converted" a good half a dozen people to anarchism, after I explained
to them what is all about. I also do not consider myself an expert in
anarchism, I just have a passion about that subject. I know a bit
about it, that's all.

> The primary reason is because the cost of living is
> high. & the economy depends on people spending on consumption even if
> it's beyond their means.

That is a fallacy that the banks & financial institutions love to
propagate; they want to lend you money & make a lot of it in the
process. You can buy all the stuff you need in cash. Except your house
& probably your car. The rest is cash. This is not an opinion of mine,
it is a fact. Many millions of people in the world (me included) today
buy all in cash. You do not need the banks, specially to finance your
monthly food purchases. In my view, that should be considered reckless
trading and the directors of any company doing so, should go to
jail.
>
> .......  & while you're

> saving money where are you going to put it? Hoarding money is stupid.

You buy what you want with those savings the rest you invest to
purchase latter on a big item.

> The point of saving is to collect interest and/or invest.

> & that takes leadership & organization.  How are you going to regulate
> banks under anarchism?

Banks do exits in an anarchic society as I mentioned before, but as
mutual organisations: you deposit your savings, thus becoming a part
owner & when you need it, you cash it. Most of the times those savings
are used to buy big items like the car or the house.

Tony

[ynot]

On May 23, 1:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,

>
> Mainly because unlike other countries in the West, the US has never
> implemented the social safety net that we have in Canada for example or
> socialized medicine, or some of the regulatory bodies that we have.
>

I was more referring to the greed that did not exist so much in the
"OLD" days of capitalism. Now is a free for all (the capitalist)
attitude, without any regard for the people with very little or no
means of making a decent living.

> I'm not really familiar with anarchist politics and economics that people
> are talking about today so I can't really comment on that.
> I have the stereotypical concept of anarchism which is no government,
> therefore chaos type of thing.

WRONG, very WRONG concept. Anarchism means no leader, hence no
government, but management. No hierarchy either; no boss / slave /
employee relationship. No lender of money, payer of interest
relationship (in essence master/slave relationship). Their must be
someone to implement the ideas of the population with a mandate on a
very, very short leach and a sort time frame. They are the delegates.
They are assigned (by all on a general consensus basis) a task and the
parameters given are non negotiable or very little. If they can't
achieve the task, they must report back and again on a consensus basis
new task will be given to NEW delegates. They are not allowed to do as
they feel or please. This to avoid imposing a solution on all and also
to rule out corruption as much as possible. As opposed to today's
system of a representative that will negotiate your money down the
drain; and he has normally 5 year to do so.

>
> While I've been told that concept is wrong, I don't really understand what
> people are talking about when they advocate anarchism.

It is a beautiful system if you know it well. NEARLY corruption free,
NEARLY no nepotism, no cronyism. Beats any capitalist system. It also
beats communism since individual liberty is A MUST (no leader,
remember?). But economically is based strongly on a "not imposed"
socialism. Profits, rent and interest is discouraged, not banned but
highly regulated. The main thing is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, NO RULERS.

>
> I have libertarian leanings

If you are a libertarian socialist you are nearly an anarchist. In a
way it is another name used to call an anarchist, to avoid the stigma
"chaos" that you just used. Read the following (big one) article about
libertarians and anarchists.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI1

> and believe that the government should encroach
> less in people's lives but also believe that a certain amount of regulation
> is required

Regulation is a must. Whatever is regulated is achieved by consensus.
You can not impose your ideas on others, so consensus has to flare
very high. It is impossible many times to achieve 100 % consensus, so
a 95% should be enough. You will never satisfy all.

> (the current issues with the stock market and banking being a
> case in point).

Lack of regulation opened the door wide to corruption and a free for
all (capitalists) to screw us with the idea that they were doing as a
favour in lending us money to buy food for the month. And we all fell
for it. Believe me anarchism is a FAR, FAR BETTER SOLUTION.

Tony

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:47 AM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 23, 1:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,

<snipped>
 

>
> I have libertarian leanings

If you are a libertarian socialist

No. More of a libertarian leaning middle of the roader. I don't even like to call myself a liberal these days because of all of the "PC" type nonsense.

Financially speaking I lean more towards conservatism than liberalism with the exception that I believe that critical areas do require regulation.

Socially I lean more towards liberalism.

So, I don't really know what the appropriate label would be.

you are nearly an anarchist. In a
way it is another name used to call an anarchist, to avoid the stigma
"chaos" that you just used. Read the following (big one) article about
libertarians and anarchists.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI1

Thanks. I'll take a look at it.

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

"You're still the goofy Canadian Maharanicess Pseudo Pagan-Priestess
Princess of AvC." --fundy xtian Chris of AvC

"Dear GodMocking Maggot" --TrueChristian

[ynot]

On May 23, 5:59 pm, TLC <tlc.tere...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "I'm not really familiar with anarchist politics and economics".
> Don't worry, I don't think most of the many types of anarchist are
> familiar with politics and economics!
>

Very true, no one knows it, but we can predict that. Believe it or not
that is the beauty of anarchism. The economic system has to be AGREED
BY ALL, but if we gage the ideas of anarchists that wrote books, kind
of the "fathers of anarchism", we can assume a socialist, mutualist,
communist and even capitalist (very doubtful) economic system, all of
each highly regulated, once again regulated by consensus. Without any
hierarchies or leaders.

Tony

[ynot]

On May 23, 11:35 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a bit of wishful thinking. But in light of it, why would you
> say on one hand that capitalism isn't perfect & is corrupt & then
> think that it's the best workable system?

I was talking about imposed economic systems. So far all failed and
all were removed by force. Capitalism will go the same way, but I
thing not by force. Of all recent economic systems implemented/imposed
(monarchy, communism, capitalism) it was the one that lasted longer;
it could have also be removed by force also, but it was not.

> If you really mean *any* system then this one is doomed as well.

Yes, nothing lasts for ever, not even a god.

>
> The system of greed is a function of capitalism.
>

And growing at an alarming pace (the greed).

> You mean plus or minus at least 175 years the basis of which,
> established by the American Revolution.

As I said before it is the system that lasted longer without ever been
imposed, as opposed to the monarchic system that lasted longer, but
was imposed.

>
> So what are you saying? Let's keep a system you admit is fucking
> people up just because you can't think of anything better?  

Never said that. In fact, I am vociferous on my idea: anarchism is the
best. By far.

> Or let's
> keep a system that's fucked up but you can at least get something out
> of it as long as we can keep its bad effects from affecting you? Your
> anger seems a bit self-serving here.

Can't see where you got that idea. Probably my writing is bad and
confusing. In this case I apologise. My message was all along:
anarchism is the best. By far.

Tony

[xeno]

On May 24, 5:48 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Save your breath.
>
> Not by a long shot I will accept this situation of the capitalist
> enterprises exploiting the masses. I am not a revolutionary nor an

> activist...

Your agenda is confused & contradictory.

[xeno]

On May 24, 6:47 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anarchism means no leader, hence no
> government, but management.

IOW, no government but some kind of government. It's contradictory.

[xeno]

On May 24, 7:46 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The economic system has to be AGREED

> BY ALL ...

Or else what? How are you going to enforce that? Do you think we're
all going to just spontaneously take this up once we've been
"converted"? What are we really agreeing to here anyway? The people
with the material advantage are going to take advantage of everyone
who doesn't.

[xeno]

On May 24, 8:15 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's a bit of wishful thinking. But in light of it, why would you
> > say on one hand that capitalism isn't perfect & is corrupt & then
> > think that it's the best workable system?

> I was talking about imposed economic systems.

Is there any other kind?

> Capitalism will go the same way, but I
> thing not by force.

Wishful thinking is habit-forming, isn't it?

[xeno]

On May 24, 8:15 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > You mean plus or minus at least 175 years the basis of which,
> > established by the American Revolution.

> As I said before it is the system that lasted longer without ever been
> imposed

A system established by a revolution? Come on.

> > So what are you saying? Let's keep a system you admit is fucking
> > people up just because you can't think of anything better?  
>
> Never said that. In fact, I am vociferous on my idea: anarchism is the
> best. By far.

Doesn't do away with capitalism. You apparently want to reform it.

[ynot]

On May 24, 7:13 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or else what? How are you going to enforce that?

You still did not grasp the concept of anarchy = no ruler. Although
many people also define anarchy=lawlessness, it is dead wrong. A
country with political anarchy as a system, HAS LAWS many of them, as
any other system; different laws, but laws nevertheless. In fact,
compared with capitalism (the current USA version, free for all,
anyone do as he/she pleases to get another buck) it has many more
laws, rules and regulations.
From an- "without" + arkhos "leader"
From Dictionary.com
anarchy
1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun
of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos
"leader" (see archon). Anarch (n.) "leader of leaderlessness," a
deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron. Anarcho-
syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

> Do you think we're
> all going to just spontaneously take this up once we've been
> "converted"?  What are we really agreeing to here anyway? The people
> with the material advantage are going to take advantage of everyone
> who doesn't.

From an- "without" + arkhos "leader". No leader, that's all anarchy
means. How can you think "take advantage" when we talk about anarchy?
No one takes advantage of anything. As I said before, apart the Nordic
countries, the world populations are not prepared to accept or even
understand an anarchic system, because of their lack of education and
mostly, the vast lack of political maturity. By the way, in its
smallest form, anarchy is practised already all over the world. Look
carefully and you will find examples, although crude and somehow
embryonic, but still anarchic systems in operation. Funny enough, you
could be one of those many millions doing it and not knowing it and at
the same time fighting it.

Tony

[ynot]

On May 24, 7:14 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Capitalism will go the same way, but I
> > thing not by force.
>
> Wishful thinking is habit-forming, isn't it?
>

OK, which part of my sentence is wishful thinking?

"Capitalism will go the same way",

or "but I thing not by force."

Tony

[xeno]

On May 24, 11:23 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or else what? How are you going to enforce that?

> You still did not grasp the concept of anarchy = no ruler.

So, I don't eagerly buy into this notion. What of it? You say you want
a certain set of circumstances. That has to be carried out some way.
Who's going to enforce this? You say no ruler but you would need at
least a number of managers. What's the difference?

> HAS LAWS many of them

That's just it. You're implying government & any kind of government is
a form of dictatorship. That's not a pejorative. That's just a fact.

> > Do you think we're
> > all going to just spontaneously take this up once we've been
> > "converted"?  What are we really agreeing to here anyway? The people
> > with the material advantage are going to take advantage of everyone
> > who doesn't.

> No one takes advantage of anything.

Then how are you going to enforce this so-called anarchism in the
first place? & amongst these syndicates, what's to stop one getting
bigger than the other, or more powerful than the others?

[ynot]

On May 24, 8:14 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A system established by a revolution? Come on.

Over those years and after billions of votes, Americans still did not
voted out capitalism.

> Doesn't do away with capitalism. You apparently want to reform it.

I want to reform capitalism by implementing (well, talking about that
it could be implemented) an anarchic system? It sounds hollow. As I
said before , the economic system (and everything else in anarchism)
is agreed by consensus; so it could by that a country after voting in
an anarchic system decided by consensus to establish as their economic
system, capitalism. It could happen, but the chances are .
000000000000000000000000001%.

Tony

[xeno]

On May 24, 11:46 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Over those years and after billions of votes, Americans still did not
> voted out capitalism.

That's because they don't have a choice. IOW, capitalism isn't up for
a vote.

> > Doesn't do away with capitalism. You apparently want to reform it.

> I want to reform capitalism by implementing (well, talking about that
> it could be implemented) an anarchic system? It sounds hollow.

That's right.

> It could happen, but the chances are .
> 000000000000000000000000001%.

& on top of everything else you lack the courage of your own
convictions. Well, maybe you just got to go deeper here.

[TLC]

Trance,

Saying, "capitalism has demonstrated that it works by virtue of the
fact that it exists", is a little like someone in Saudi Arabia saying
Islam has demonstrated that it works by virtue of the fact that it
exists!

But, capitalism is a crisis-ridden system which isn't working for most
in the world, except for a few financiers, industrialists, bankers and
speculators who find their investments are not yielding an ever
increasing rate of profit. So, they pull their money out, or expect
the working people to subsidise their over production failures/greed
by closing down factories, services etc and shift production to low-
wage countries.

If capitalism was working why does it need the state to bail out its
banking system and market with trillions of the peoples money and what
do we get in return? We get the same capitalist bankers and
speculators who caused the crisis, making it more difficult for
governments to borrow because we've enormous deficits created by
saving capitalism. Now, people are told by capitalists that the debts
must be reduced, by slashing every form of public expenditure
including health, education and welfare!

And Socialism, even if you only want to concentrate on the
contradictions within revolutionary socialist states and ignore the
devestated economic circumstances brought about by capitalism from
which they grew, or the continued economic and physical attacks from
the capitalist countries which they faced it's impossible to claim
that people didn't attain and have a better life under socialism.

capitalism only demonstrated that it works by virtue of the fact that
its elite could afford cold and hot wars against countries wishing to
develop socialism and capitalism did support fascist dictators and
religious maniac leaders if they danced to its war song against
socialism!




On 23 May, 17:20, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

TLC

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:36 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Trance,

Saying, "capitalism has demonstrated that it works by virtue of the
fact that it exists", is a little like someone in Saudi Arabia saying
Islam has demonstrated that it works by virtue of the fact that it
exists!

Of course it's not as simple as I'm making it. There are many, many associated issues.

And I'm not excluding the positive effect that the Left had in Capitalist countries in terms of tempering it and ensuring that people's well being was considered in the process.

This was done by unionization, establishment of labour laws, civil rights, etc.

A capitalist system with some socialist features has turned out to be quite successful and workable irrespective of the problems that also exist which are many.

All that says is work still needs to be done to manage the capitalist system in a more stable way through regulation.

Canada hasn't had some of the problems that other countries are facing, particularly the US because we do have many of those regulations in place like in our banking system.

Of course, we're still going to be effected by the global economy and the crisis currently occurring in other countries.

None of this says that the system is unmanagable or unworkable.

Communism didn't work at all.

The only "communist" countries that are still managing are those which have restored key features of capitalism to the mix and even they are still not progressing well or in any more of a stable manner than we are.

One could argue that they continue to have *more* problems not fewer than the ones that we are facing.

[JTB]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 21, 2:07 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, and one reason rents are high is because many renters trash the place
> they rent because they do not value the property of others...some don't pay
> the rent either and have to be evicted *after* trashing the place...these
> keep many would-be landlords out of the business from bad
> experiences...driving costs up...the door swings both ways...

The *primary* reason why rents are high is because that is what the
market will bear. The average income is going to get eaten by +/- 30%
on rent but for poorer people that's going to be higher all the while
paying for what tends to be substandard housing. Living in substandard
housing is dangerous so the people with more money aren't going to try
to save money by living in them.

Yes, charging what the market will bear is a factor, but it is offset by more competition: if apartments are sitting vacant all across the city the price goes down, doesn't it? If there are fewer landlords because renters are too difficult to deal with the costs go up because demand exceeds supply. The door swings *both* ways...

[JTB]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:47 AM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 23, 1:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,

>
> Mainly because unlike other countries in the West, the US has never
> implemented the social safety net that we have in Canada for example or
> socialized medicine, or some of the regulatory bodies that we have.
>

I was more referring to the greed that did not exist so much in the
"OLD" days of capitalism. Now is a free for all (the capitalist)
attitude, without any regard for the people with very little or no
means of making a decent living.

You mean before large corporations showed how far the greed could go? The greed was always there, but it was less obvious on a small scale...
 

> I'm not really familiar with anarchist politics and economics that people
> are talking about today so I can't really comment on that.
> I have the stereotypical concept of anarchism which is no government,
> therefore chaos type of thing.

WRONG, very WRONG concept. Anarchism means no leader, hence no
government, but management. No hierarchy either; no boss / slave /
employee relationship. No lender of money, payer of interest
relationship (in essence master/slave relationship). Their must be
someone to implement the ideas of the population with a mandate on a
very, very short leach and a sort time frame. They are the delegates.
They are assigned (by all on a general consensus basis)

i.e. elected by the majority...
 

a task and the
parameters given are non negotiable or very little. If they can't
achieve the task, they must report back and again on a consensus basis
new task will be given to NEW delegates. They are not allowed to do as
they feel or please.

...and they are monitored by whom to ensure that they not get creative?
 

This to avoid imposing a solution on all and also
to rule out corruption as much as possible.

...and will result in everyone going through the same learning curve, meaning less efficiency, less problem-solving skills, etc...
 

As opposed to today's
system of a representative that will negotiate your money down the
drain; and he has normally 5 year to do so.

>
> While I've been told that concept is wrong, I don't really understand what
> people are talking about when they advocate anarchism.

It is a beautiful system if you know it well. NEARLY corruption free,
NEARLY no nepotism, no cronyism. Beats any capitalist system.

...until a neighboring capitalist country starts offering higher salaries to your best and brightest science and medical graduates...
 

It also
beats communism since individual liberty is A MUST (no leader,
remember?).

...but say hello to the *buddy system* and the oligarchy that will form from within the *consensus* group...
 

But economically is based strongly on a "not imposed"
socialism. Profits, rent and interest is discouraged, not banned but
highly regulated. The main thing is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, NO RULERS.

>
> I have libertarian leanings

If you are a libertarian socialist you are nearly an anarchist. In a
way it is another name used to call an anarchist, to avoid the stigma
"chaos" that you just used. Read the following (big one) article about
libertarians and anarchists.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI1

> and believe that the government should encroach
> less in people's lives but also believe that a certain amount of regulation
> is required

Regulation is a must. Whatever is regulated is achieved by consensus.
You can not impose your ideas on others, so consensus has to flare
very high. It is impossible many times to achieve 100 % consensus, so
a 95% should be enough. You will never satisfy all.

How many people will be involved in getting to this consensus? How watered-down will the policy be by the time everyone agrees? I have been in a room where it took 13 people 6 hours to arrive at a (largely meaningless) consensus...on just one main topic...
 

> (the current issues with the stock market and banking being a
> case in point).

Lack of regulation opened the door wide to corruption and a free for
all (capitalists) to screw us with the idea that they were doing as a
favour in lending us money to buy food for the month. And we all fell
for it. Believe me anarchism is a FAR, FAR BETTER SOLUTION.

Lack of regulation also allows for greater creativity...every fix comes with its own bag of problems...

[xeno]

On May 25, 11:47 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The *primary* reason why rents are high is because that is what the
> > market will bear. The average income is going to get eaten by +/- 30%
> > on rent but for poorer people that's going to be higher all the while
> > paying for what tends to be substandard housing. Living in substandard
> > housing is dangerous so the people with more money aren't going to try
> > to save money by living in them.

> Yes, charging what the market will bear is a factor, but it is offset by
> more competition: if apartments are sitting vacant all across the city the
> price goes down, doesn't it?

You're right. It's abt competition. Engels sez "Rent implies
competition; profit on capital is solely determined by
competition." (See his essay, "A Critique of Political Economy". It
has a refutation of Malthus's Poplulation Theory.)

If there are fewer landlords because renters
> are too difficult to deal with the costs go up because demand exceeds
> supply. The door swings *both* ways...

Why would there be fewer landlords because renters are too difficult?
Costs go up because demand exceeds supply regardless of difficult
renters. Costs are only going to go down when supply exceeds demand.
Seems like that means more housing needs to get built. & so the door
swings both ways? There is always going to be an inherent antagonism
between property owners & renters because the former wants to get as
much as they can & the latter want to pay as little as possible. After
all, the average renter is going to spend at least 4 months of their
work year just paying for a place to live. For poorer people that can
get as as high as over 6 months.

[xeno]

On May 25, 6:28 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The only "communist" countries that are still managing are those which have
> restored key features of capitalism to the mix and even they are still not
> progressing well or in any more of a stable manner than we are.

China can very well end up being the economic giant of the world. You
should be happy. Maybe they will drop all pretense of being communists
& invite you over there to blog yourself into oblivion.

[xeno]

On May 25, 1:11 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is a beautiful system if you know it well. NEARLY corruption free,
> > NEARLY no nepotism, no cronyism. Beats any capitalist system.

> ...until a neighboring capitalist country starts offering higher salaries to
> your best and brightest science and medical graduates...

What? You can't train more people in science to offset that problem?

[JTB]

What you are saying has some merit. Obviously there are problems when companies are allowed to get so large that a government feels obligated to bail them out rather than have their entire economy collapse, but which system is truly better? One thing is for sure: I do not recall reading many accounts of people fleeing capitalist countries under of cover of darkness so that they could be smuggled into communist regimes...but then maybe I am just not that well read...

[JTB]

Hey, they'll take as many as they can get, right? So they are quite happy that the anarchist state's taxpayers will subsidize the cost of training each batch as needed...
 

[xeno]

On May 25, 4:05 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 1:11 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It is a beautiful system if you know it well. NEARLY corruption free,
> > > > NEARLY no nepotism, no cronyism. Beats any capitalist system.
>
> > > ...until a neighboring capitalist country starts offering higher salaries
> > to
> > > your best and brightest science and medical graduates...
>
> > What? You can't train more people in science to offset that problem?
>
> Hey, they'll take as many as they can get, right?

No, they'll take whom they deem are the best & the brightest who are
willing to work for them. It behooves us to give such people positive
incentives to work for the people & in the meanwhile it is in our best
interests to promote science & train people rather than develop elites
with its accompanying elitism.

> So they are quite happy
> that the anarchist state's taxpayers will subsidize the cost of training
> each batch as needed...

Well, I'm not talking abt an anarchist state & the idea of such a
state is an oxymoron.

[JTB]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 25, 11:47 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The *primary* reason why rents are high is because that is what the
> > market will bear. The average income is going to get eaten by +/- 30%
> > on rent but for poorer people that's going to be higher all the while
> > paying for what tends to be substandard housing. Living in substandard
> > housing is dangerous so the people with more money aren't going to try
> > to save money by living in them.

> Yes, charging what the market will bear is a factor, but it is offset by
> more competition: if apartments are sitting vacant all across the city the
> price goes down, doesn't it?

You're right. It's abt competition. Engels sez "Rent implies
competition; profit on capital is solely determined by
competition." (See his essay, "A Critique of Political Economy". It
has a refutation of Malthus's Poplulation Theory.)

If there are fewer landlords because renters
> are too difficult to deal with the costs go up because demand exceeds
> supply. The door swings *both* ways...

Why would there be fewer landlords because renters are too difficult?

5 examples:

1) A friend of mine had 3 rental properties, but because of having negative experiences with renters causing property damage, failing to pay rent, and him having to take people to court to get them to pay their utility bills he decided to sell the properties. They are no longer available to rent because of abusive tenants.
2) My sister rented her basement suite to a fellow who eventually skipped town after living there rent free for several months. Since in my region it is not lawful to evict someone in the winter that type of abuse happens. She will no longer rent the suite.
3) A relative had a condo for rent, but 6 months into the lease the fellow's cheques started bouncing. After being out several months rent they sold the condo to force an eviction rather than proceed through the courts.
4) Another friend rented a house to an individual who did not pay the rent and lived there free for several months, charging up utility bills to the property owner (utility companies will no longer bill renters directly in my region). After considerable effort the renter was expelled.
5) Renters were in a property for only 3 months during which time they damaged the carpets so much that they needed replacing and the walls needed repainting resulting in a net loss for the landlord...guess what? He raised the rates so that he would get better quality renters.

These are just 5 examples of the dozens and dozens I have heard about and I am not even in the rental business. If renters were more considerate (on the whole) there would be more willing landlords...I have been a renter and have not trashed the property that did not belong to me so obviously I do not believe all renters are the same...but there are a fair number who are.
 

Costs go up because demand exceeds supply regardless of difficult
renters. Costs are only going to go down when supply exceeds demand.
Seems like that means more housing needs to get built. & so the door
swings both ways? There is always going to be an inherent antagonism
between property owners & renters because the former wants to get as
much as they can & the latter want to pay as little as possible.

Or the one wants to get a fair price and the other wants to pay a fair price...if I was a landlord and knew for sure that I would not have to factor the cost of new carpets, paint, and a new counter-top into the agreement I am sure I would be more than willing to charge less in order to retain a quality renter.

After
all, the average renter is going to spend at least 4 months of their
work year just paying for a place to live. For poorer people that can
get as as high as over 6 months.

--

[JTB]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:04 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 25, 4:05 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 1:11 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It is a beautiful system if you know it well. NEARLY corruption free,
> > > > NEARLY no nepotism, no cronyism. Beats any capitalist system.
>
> > > ...until a neighboring capitalist country starts offering higher salaries
> > to
> > > your best and brightest science and medical graduates...
>
> > What? You can't train more people in science to offset that problem?
>
> Hey, they'll take as many as they can get, right?

No, they'll take whom they deem are the best & the brightest who are
willing to work for them. It behooves us to give such people positive
incentives to work for the people & in the meanwhile it is in our best
interests to promote science & train people rather than develop elites
with its accompanying elitism.

? I don't think you and I are responding to the same thing... ;-0
 

>  So they are quite happy
> that the anarchist state's taxpayers will subsidize the cost of training
> each batch as needed...

Well, I'm not talking abt an anarchist state

Well, I was so that explains it...
 

& the idea of such a
state is an oxymoron.

[TLC]

JTB,

With your anecdotes of bad tenants you seem to be advancing the
reason, if accidentelly, why rented property should be built and owned
publically and not used as a means of private profit. Did the "bad
tenants" in your anecdotes have security of tenure? Or, were these
"bad tenants" on short term leases where they had no say in the
running of their homes?

Also, the only reason rents are high is because there is a lack of
public housing, because in the last 20 odd years capitalist
governments have let the private sector run rented housing and the
rents are in many places based on the markets inflated value of the
property.

You say, "I do not recall reading many accounts of people fleeing
capitalist countries". Let's put your arguement in context, why do the
wealthier capitalist countries have so many immigration controls? And
did you know that many from communist countries did not flee, but were
invited to and worked in the West as guest workers and normally
returned home of their own accord? Don't believe all the capitalist
press propaganda!

On 26 May, 03:21, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[JTB]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:07 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

JTB,

With your anecdotes of bad tenants you seem to be advancing the
reason, if accidentelly, why rented property should be built and owned
publically and not used as a means of private profit.  Did the "bad
tenants" in your anecdotes have security of tenure?  Or, were these
"bad tenants" on short term leases where they had no say in the
running of their homes?

So no say in running the home they are renting = it is OK to have little or no respect for the property of others?
 

Also, the only reason rents are high is because there is a lack of
public housing, because in the last 20 odd years capitalist
governments have let the private sector run rented housing and the
rents are in many places based on the markets inflated value of the
property.

The trouble with a word like "only" is that it is liable to be understood as standing for a singular reason. Of course a shortage of public housing is going to contribute to higher rent costs...but so is a shortage of rental properties...oh, it is marvelous when we can both agree ;-)
 

You say, "I do not recall reading many accounts of people fleeing
capitalist countries". Let's put your arguement in context, why do the
wealthier capitalist countries have so many immigration controls?

To prevent an influx of unskilled labor ending up on welfare? The point I was making is that there are no *emigration* controls...why? Because no one wants to leave...or if they do they are not under any threat if they do so.
 

 And
did you know that many from communist countries did not flee, but were
invited to and worked in the West as guest workers and normally
returned home of their own accord?  Don't believe all the capitalist
press propaganda!

Oh, that's odd. My in-laws risked their lives (and that of their children) to escape communism. They were even followed all the way to the Swiss border by communist agents. To this day they still have a strong suspicion of anyone who takes an overt interest in their activities. Two friends of mine endured horrendous hardships fleeing communism from Asia. And another friend speaks of the constant suspicion she endured while living in communist Romania: so much so that it took several years for her to trust people.
 
I have not read the capitalist propaganda, but have gained a wealth of information from my associations with communist ex-patriots from a variety of countries.

Now, one thing I will tell you is that adjustment to a capitalist country was not easy for many of them. As one of my Cuban friends remarked, "In communism there is a certain comfort in knowing that you will be taken care of." Certainly, everything is a trade off and communism is no different: you trade your freedoms for security; some like it, and others find the lack of freedom of expression more frightening than the problem of finding a means to make a living every day on their own.

Don't get me wrong, TLC, in spite of being a factory owner (or because of it) I am not necessarily wild about unbridled Capitalism either. It is a system that rewards the rich and powerful at the expense of the little guy (like every other system, actually). A large multi-faceted corporation will always have a strong advantage against a new, upstart rival and by itself the unbridled lust for money that takes place in Capitalism makes a mockery of human interests when they come up against the wants of the cold corporation. The problem with Communism, on the other hand, is that it stands as an over-correction: instead of the problem of every individual for him/herself, Communism offers to replace the individual in favor of a collective approach. This is grand for those who enjoy being *absolutely average,* but while it raises up those on the bottom it pulls down those who would otherwise have been able to achieve more. Am I wrong in wishing for a middle of the road solution?

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[xeno]

On May 25, 4:02 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 5 examples:

Look, I hate to be an asshole but big fish eat little fish. Little
landlords don't have deep pockets & are poor themselves.
When they sell their property because they can't deal with bad tenants
that's a reflection of their own poverty.

[JTB]

I think that is very true...so you don't have to worry about being an asshole...unless you want to be...
 

[TLC]

JTB,

I see you didn't answer the question of tenants having security of
tenure and ignore their rights to rent homes where the rents and
lenghth of stay are not based on the owners whim of getting the
highest rent/profit or speculation of when is the best time to remove
the tenants without consideration and sell.

And why shouldn't tenants have a say in the home they are renting?
They are living in it, normally looking after its interior and decor
and paying for it!

The sort of owners you seem to feel sorry for are the second house
buyers who speculate on getting a profit from renting. By renting
cheaply furnished accomadation to tenants as if they were renting
hotel rooms without any services. Do you really expect such insecure
tenants to empathise about the owners profit? Although, in most
cases, even though tenants have no rights, tenants actually do care
and even improve the property!!

The rented and housing market in general has beeen fucked up by
capitalism and even though some in the private sector have made vast
profits it doesn't mean every aspiring property, so-called, owner can.

Another one of those anecdotes of, family risked its life and ran all
the way to Switzerland to escape communism and were followed by
communist agents! Just one question. Why didn't they ask for
political asylum in Austria or Germany, or one of the other capitalist
countries they passed through or stay in Switzerland? And Do you
really, really believe communist countries sent agents after every
Economic Migrant who thought they'd make more in the West??

The rest of your post is wearisome and contradictory. "Communism

offers to replace the individual in favor of a collective approach."

Well, under capitalism you get the individual approach if you can
afford it and socialism does raise up those on the bottom, it's called
giving everyone a chance.

On 26 May, 18:37, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > <atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@­googlegroups.com>

[JTB]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:33 AM, TLC <tlc.t...@googlemail.com> wrote:

JTB,

I see you didn't answer the question of tenants having security of
tenure and ignore their rights to rent homes where the rents and
lenghth of stay are not based on the owners whim of getting the
highest rent/profit or speculation of when is the best time to remove
the tenants without consideration and sell.

I guess I missed that part...sorry...what sort of scenario are you advocating? My experience with public housing is that they are usually trashed. Are you suggesting something more along the lines of the renters gaining property rights without the risk of ownership? Why would they respect a property that doesn't belong to them just because they know they cannot be evicted? Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to explain to me...any way to spell it out (maybe in point form?). Could you also give your reasonable expectations of both the pros and cons to this arrangement?
 

And why shouldn't tenants have a say in the home they are renting?
They are living in it, normally looking after its interior and decor
and paying for it!

They are paying to stay there only. Do you get to decorate your hotel room? If you rented out a room in your home would you really appreciate the renter moving walls and turning the closet into a second bathroom?

I realize it is frustrating to be caught in the rental catch 22 and you hardly need someone to suggest that a renter would actually pay lower payments to buy a home of their own. I like the solution that Habitat for Humanity proposes in that it helps to subsidize the down-payment through sweat equity. This is great motivation for the purchaser and allows them to feel the self-respect that working for one's achievements brings. The problem is that there are not enough projects like this out there...would you suggest the government pursue more of these types of initiatives?
 

The sort of owners you seem to feel sorry for are the second house
buyers who speculate on getting a profit from renting.  By renting
cheaply furnished accomadation to tenants as if they were renting
hotel rooms without any services.  Do you really expect such insecure
tenants to empathise about the owners profit?  Although, in most
cases, even though tenants have no rights, tenants actually do care
and even improve the property!!

Actually, the point I was making is that if everyone who had a second house or a basement suite felt secure in renting it there would be a lot more properties on the market and that would cause the price to fall. I was explaining that placing the blame solely on the landlords (money-grubbing s.o.b.s) is simplistic when the tenants actually can and do contribute to the problem. It is like shoplifters explaining that the reason they steal is because the prices are too high: shoplifting = higher prices to make up losses. Renters damaging property and skipping out on rent = higher rent charged to the responsible people to make up for the deadbeats.
 

The rented and housing market in general has beeen fucked up by
capitalism and even though some in the private sector have made vast
profits it doesn't mean every aspiring property, so-called, owner can.

Another one of those anecdotes of, family risked its life and ran all
the way to Switzerland to escape communism and were followed by
communist agents!  Just one question.  Why didn't they ask for
political asylum in Austria or Germany, or one of the other capitalist
countries they passed through or stay in Switzerland?

Maybe they had relatives in North America?
 

 And Do you
really, really believe communist countries sent agents after every
Economic Migrant who thought they'd make more in the West??

No, but the fact that they left all of their possessions behind in order to pretend that they were merely traveling is telling, don't you think?
 

The rest of your post is wearisome and contradictory.

Well, so sorry to bore you. Thank you for taking time from your lofty, intellectual position to stoop down and chat with us *common folk,* us being all equal and such, eh comrade?...I suppose some may be more equal than others... ;-(
 

 "Communism

offers to replace the individual in favor of a collective approach."

Well, under capitalism you get the individual approach if you can
afford it and socialism does raise up those on the bottom, it's called
giving everyone a chance.

Did I not express the exact same sentiments? Of course they are contradictory because I want the impossible, just like you: a system that motivates all, allows limitless achievement, but leaves no one behind. Maybe you were fainting away with ennui at this point and so did not understand? :-0


 

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[ynot]

On May 26, 1:02 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why would there be fewer landlords because renters are too difficult?
>
> 5 examples:
>

> These are just 5 examples of the dozens and dozens I have heard about and I
> am not even in the rental business. If renters were more considerate (on the
> whole) there would be more willing landlords...I have been a renter and have
> not trashed the property that did not belong to me so obviously I do not
> believe all renters are the same...but there are a fair number who are.
>

Whom to blame? The tenants/renters? No. The government. They make laws
that allow that to happen. I am a landlord and my business is also
estate agency, rentals. I go through that every day, with my own
properties and with my clients properties. If only the law was fast
and effective! I am not saying to go to the eviction for the drop of a
hat, but the government should establish a housing tribunal with
strong teeth to deal with a tenant/renter that defaults, swiftly,off
course only after listening to both parties. If the tenant is wrong,
does not pay the rent, or the lights or breaks any clause in the
lease, an eviction order should be carried out on a 2 or 3 day notice,
unless the problem is corrected. If the landlord is at fault t then an
heavy fine should be applied. I agree that this situation instead of
protecting the tenant is protecting us the landlords, because very few
investors come to the market, consequently creating an imbalance and
an increase in the rents. I am not complaining, but sometimes the
things go wrong and we loose a bit. At the level the rents are, it
pays to take a chance.

Tony

[xeno]

On May 27, 12:21 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whom to blame? The tenants/renters? No. The government.

The government, that we live under, maintains a dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie & so is a mediator that helps private property have
dominion.

[TLC]

JTB,

Sorry, I did not mean to seem lofty, nor intellectual, it's just that
I was tired and I'd heard a family member had just died in Cameroon,
West Africa.

But, you are wrong about public housing. Throughout Europe you will
find tenants not only working with public housing authorities, profit
free housing associations and co-ops etc, but in some places running
housing estates for local government.

The main problems in public housing are capitalist governments are not
spending enough on them, even letting them fall into disrepair and
governments have maintained a housing shortage to ensure that house
prices (and therefore mortgages) remained artificially high.

This housing shortage, at a time when the proportion of personal
wealth owned by the poorest half of the population has fallen from 6
per cent in the 90's to 1 per cent today, is creating the second-hand
rent market run by want to be profiteers. Increase the amount of
public housing then the people who complain about the amount of profit
they can squease out of rent returns won't even stay, or be needed, in
the rented sector.

Also, rent to buy deals are just another scam, normally leaving the
renters with no security of tenure, bigger rents and the financial
responsibility of exteriour and structural repairs.

On 27 May, 18:50, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -