GOP admits to racist voter suppression.

Imaginos1892 wrote:YOU called ME a slave for working for a company that could fire me. YOU are the one that doesn't have a clue what slavery is.

Slavery, at its core, means that you are owned. That your life, and the work you do, is someone else's property.
When capitalism came around and feudalism went the way of the dodo, we deluded ourselves into thinking that we are now free, that us selling our labor (and, on occasion, our health) to the highest bidder was so much better than being owned outright by someone richer than we are.

But did we really, fundamentally, fix things by doing that? No. Because now that we didn't have people distinguished by birth (hah), we now have people distinguished by their wealth. We traded one status marker for another; And while I'm not going to claim that nothing has changed for the better over the past few hundred years, we're still a long ways off from that utopian ideal of having everyone actually start off on equal footing, able to rise as far as their skills will take them, no matter who their parents were or where and when they were born.

The E wrote:It's cute how you think you know what I want or what communism is.

I know what communism is, but apparently you don't. Or you have your own private little definition of 'communism' that bears no resemblance to what the rest of us know it to mean.

'Communism' means that 'everybody owns everything in common' which in practice means the government owns everything. Those running the government control all property, all money, all jobs, all trade, every aspect of the 'comrades' lives.

That is a quite specific interpretation of communism, the one popular in the Soviet Union.

Do you really think that, in the decades since that country fell (and even in the decades before that), we haven't thought about what that meant for the communist ideal and how it can be brought into reality?

Here, have a primer.

No, it's a compete refutation of what you 'know' about me.

Oh, how I just love it when you edit things around. The "this is a non-argument" thing, as I explained in the part of the post you snipped out in order to have an excuse to be pissy at me, was about you bringing up Bernie Madoff's party affiliation as if that mattered, as if that invalidated anything.

The E wrote:Oh, so you decided to throw your vote into the dumpster. How courageous of you.

Oh, so you've bought into the self-perpetuating lie that 'only the Republicrats are REAL candidates' and that voting for the candidate who best represented MY interests was 'throwing my vote away'. That's the attitude that forces us to choose between Clintons and Trumps.

That your electoral system forces binary outcomes and does not allow third-party candidates to succeed except in really extraordinary circumstances is a fact, not an "attitude". As someone who's "built this country", do you take responsibility for that too, Imaginos? Or is that one of those things that you dare not change because doing so would, in some way, not be what a bunch of 18th century revolutionaries thought to be a good idea?

If a business tries something, and it doesn't work, they have to stop doing it or they will go broke. If the government tries something that doesn't work, they will keep shoveling our money into it forever.

You do know that measuring a government by the same success metrics as a business is a stupid thing to do?

The E wrote:Slavery, at its core, means that you are owned. That your life, and the work you do, is someone else's property.

So you DO know something about slavery. Why, then, do you keep using the term where it does not apply?

Employment is a partnership. I provide labor, knowledge and skills. The employer provides a workplace, tools, organization, products incorporating the knowledge and skills of dozens of other workers, sales, and distribution, and collects money from the customers to pay me. Without all of that support, my labor wouldn't be worth jack.

The company can fire me if they are not satisfied with my work. I can quit if I am not satisfied with the job. It's the exact opposite of slavery, and only a complete idiot could call it slavery.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Those are abuses. They deserve punishment equivalent to the damage they caused.

THAT was my reply.

The E wrote:Oh, how I just love it when you edit things around. The "this is a non-argument" thing, as I explained in the part of the post you snipped out in order to have an excuse to be pissy at me, was about you bringing up Bernie Madoff's party affiliation as if that mattered, as if that invalidated anything.

YOU missed the argument and fixated on a little supplemental information.

Imaginos1892 wrote:So you DO know something about slavery. Why, then, do you keep using the term where it does not apply?

Employment is a partnership. I provide labor, knowledge and skills. The employer provides a workplace, tools, organization, products incorporating the knowledge and skills of dozens of other workers, sales, and distribution, and collects money from the customers to pay me. Without all of that support, my labor wouldn't be worth jack.

The company can fire me if they are not satisfied with my work. I can quit if I am not satisfied with the job. It's the exact opposite of slavery, and only a complete idiot could call it slavery.

I did say that I wasn't going to claim that nothing has changed for the better over the past few centuries, didn't I.

You, as someone with considerable savings and a career behind you, are considerably more free than any slave ever was. I have no doubt that, if your current place of employment becomes unbearable to you, you can just pick up your things and head to greener pastures if you want.

But what if you can't? What if you do not have those savings, or easily transferable skills? If your personal fortunes are entirely dependant on you being employed in the job you currently hold?

I know, I know, that's not relevant to you. You can hardly imagine anyone who's not a wastrel being in such a situation; Anyone stuck in such a place must surely deserve it for being a complete fuck-up who shouldn't be trusted with anything.

In such a situation, what's the difference between a slave on a plantation and someone who is part of the "working poor" population? Please, enlighten me how they can use the same freedoms you have to better their lot in life (Before you do, however, please inform yourself about what doing that actually costs these days).

Imaginos1892 wrote:I know what communism is, but apparently you don't. Or you have your own private little definition of 'communism' that bears no resemblance to what the rest of us know it to mean.

'Communism' means that 'everybody owns everything in common' which in practice means the government owns everything. Those running the government control all property, all money, all jobs, all trade, every aspect of the 'comrades' lives.

Facepalm.

The "government owns everything" is SOCIALISM, and NOT Communism. The socialism was viewed as intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, where the workers control the country, but still needed bureaucracy. financial system and government apparatus to set things right. In short, socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work".

The communism theory assumed, that socialism would gradually evolve into communism, where the money, bureaucracy and eventually the state itself would be abolished, and all society would be changed to accommodate the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ideal.

Please don't make such embarrassing mistake again.

Dilandu wrote:The communism theory assumed, that socialism would gradually evolve into communism, where the money, bureaucracy and eventually the state itself would be abolished, and all society would be changed to accommodate the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ideal.

So, it would eventually graduate to anarchy? Oh, what fun.

Communism doesn't even come close to qualifying as a theory, either. At best, it's an unproven hypothesis. I'd place it closer to 'pipe-dream' myself.

The E wrote:But what if you can't? What if you do not have those savings, or easily transferable skills? If your personal fortunes are entirely dependant on you being employed in the job you currently hold?

What if there is only one job in the whole world that you can do? Get real! In a free society there are always other employers. If the government hasn't regulated them out of existence.

Even if there's only one job you can do NOW, you are free to learn, and develop more skills, and then look for another job. There are libraries all over town, full of books containing all sorts of useful information, and a library card is free. Libraries are one of those things a society should support, by the way.

And, why do you not have any savings? Why did you spend every nickel the minute you got it? Anybody can put away a few dollars a week. In a year you'll have a couple hundred. In a few years you'll have a thousand or more.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:But what if you can't? What if you do not have those savings, or easily transferable skills? If your personal fortunes are entirely dependant on you being employed in the job you currently hold?

What if there is only one job in the whole world that you can do? Get real! In a free society there are always other employers. If the government hasn't regulated them out of existence.

Yes, there are always employers. However, are there always going to be employers looking for people like you in an area that you can reach? Not everyone can afford to up sticks and move across the country to start a new job.

The term, Imaginos, is "working poor" or "precariat" (Please do investigate those terms, they're important. Feel free to rant about how they're bullshit and not real while you do, but do take care to provide actual evidence for that when you return here): People who are stuck in situations where they can't advance because they can't find the time and energy to work on self-improvement, don't have the opportunity to create savings like yours, and are thus bound to selling their workforce to whoever is willing to pay for it (unlike your situation, where you might have people lining up to make offers to work for them instead of your current employer).

But, again, those people don't matter to you, do they?

Even if there's only one job you can do NOW, you are free to learn, and develop more skills, and then look for another job. There are libraries all over town, full of books containing all sorts of useful information, and a library card is free. Libraries are one of those things a society should support, by the way.

Funny how capitalists are working hard to support their removal, and curtail their usefulness by supporting copyright legislation that removes their stock in trade.

Almost as if an informed workforce is not actually in the interests of those with the money, is it?

And, why do you not have any savings? Why did you spend every nickel the minute you got it? Anybody can put away a few dollars a week. In a year you'll have a couple hundred. In a few years you'll have a thousand or more.

Precariat. Working Poor. Look it up. And then remember that the economic situation today is markedly different from the one you grew up in.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Communism doesn't even come close to qualifying as a theory, either. At best, it's an unproven hypothesis. I'd place it closer to 'pipe-dream' myself.

Your opinion is absolutely irrelevant. There are well-established difference between socialism and communism, and you do not know that.

To put it simply; you are incompetent in such matters. Please do not embarrass yourself further, trying to look street-smart in matters, which were point of lifetime works of many greatest minds in history of humankind.

Dilandu wrote:all society would be changed to accommodate the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ideal.

Yeah, I’ve been hearing that stupid feel-good slogan for fifty years, parroted by fools that never consider what it really means.

All of you that piss and moan about how horrible capitalism is, have you ever stopped to actually think about what your ‘ideal’ communism would be like?

What are your ‘needs’? Shelter, food, clothing, and medical treatment as required. That’s IT. No more. And who decides what you ‘need’ anyway? You? The government? Somebody else? Everybody EXCEPT you?

The Navy provided for my needs. I lived in a compartment with fifty other guys, my rack had an eight-cubic-foot locker built in, we all shared three toilets, two pissers, two sinks and three showers with the forty guys in the next compartment, and we got fairly decent food in the mess. All of our needs were met, plus a few extras. I even had a top rack, and an air-conditioning vent near my head. Luxury!

Do you NEED a house, or an apartment, or even your own bathroom? Do you NEED a big-screen TV, and a nice stereo system? Do you NEED a car? Do you NEED a cell phone? Do you NEED to travel around the country on vacation? Do you NEED the computer you’re using to post here?

Nope.

You can live without all of those things. Wouldn’t be much fun, but you don’t NEED them.

Anything more than a rack, a shared bathroom, a communal kitchen and a few utilitarian clothes are not NEEDS, they are WANTS. And communism has absolutely no room for WANTS.

Most everybody WANTS a big house, a pool, nice furniture, shiny new car, king-size bed, jacuzzi, 80” HDTV (or two), killer stereo, 64GB iPhone, super computer, books, music, movies, a week at Disney World every year, and guess what? There ain’t enough to go around. So, in your communist dreams, who gets to have the things they want, and who doesn’t? Who decides? Or, since not everybody can have them, nobody can have them? To be ‘fair’?

And then, who decides what your ABILITY is? Who determines whether you’re giving your full ABILITY, or slacking off, and cheating everybody else? What should be done with you if you ARE a slacker? And, since you’ll never get more than your NEEDS, no matter how much ABILITY you have, where is any motivation to work harder, improve yourself, become more productive? You’ll never get anything for your trouble. There’s no reason NOT to be a slacker.

Capitalism has room for both NEEDS, and WANTS, and a metric for ABILITY. You decide what you need, and what you want, and you set your priorities accordingly. If you want a deluxe barbecue grill, you don’t have to justify it as a ‘need’ to anybody; you save up your money and you go buy it. If you’d rather have the 80” HDTV, you buy that. If you want both, you’ll have to demonstrate more ability and make more money.

You've obviously never thought about those issues. To put it simply; you are incompetent in such matters.

Capitalism ain’t perfect. But it beats the hell out of communism.

Imaginos1892 wrote:
All of you that piss and moan about how horrible capitalism is, have you ever stopped to actually think about what your ‘ideal’ communism would be like?

You clearly did not. Because the major point of communism ideas was to push the productive capabilities of society so far, that the society would most definitely NOT be limited to only "basic" need. It is one of the defining point between socialism and communism, actually.

Again, you demonstrated your absolute incompetence. Imaginos189, please stop right now. You should learn at least something about the subject, before starting to play all-knowing.

It's just sad to see how the peoples just could not admit, that their competence in some sphere is limited, and turn into laughable embarrassment, trying to prove that they are right - by making more and more mistakes, that just demonstrate their lack of knowledge about subject.

Dilandu wrote:You clearly did not. Because the major point of communism ideas was to push the productive capabilities of society so far, that the society would most definitely NOT be limited to only "basic" need.

And that worked out SO well in Russia, East Germany, and the rest of the countries that were 'liberated' from capitalism, didn't it? Their productivity was half that of the 'evil capitalists' at best.