Why does the left see astroturf everywhere they look?

[Meirionnydd]

Problems is you were not talking about individuals within a socialist system, you were talking about the socialist government. Try staying on topic. Socialist governments such as China and North Korea treat their workers more like disposable fodder than human beings and that is going on today. To claim that socialism is responsible for worker rights is absolutely revisionist history and not in the realm of reality.

I had absolutely no idea that China had a socialist government. China is more of a capitalist-totalitarian form of governance. Again, with North Korea, officially considered to be a 'Socialist republic', but evidence suggests otherwise, most would consider it a Stalinist dictatorship.

Most of the individuals that campaigned for workers rights in the 19th century and even today, would either identify themselves as Socialists, or at the very least Social Democrats. They certainly weren't free-market capitalists.

Expanding upon that. I have not witnessed, in my country, a right-wing political party, campaign for the rights of workers in recent history. Just last week the conservative Opposition leader announced that he wanted to abolish penality rates for workers, because it 'hurts business'.

 

[Strauss]

Erem, I guess you still haven't grasped this basic knowledge yet...I don't really know how to word it any clearer for you... Socialism and Communism are two different things.

Bullcrap. Neither country, the former Soviet Union nor China were communist, they have always been socialist. You can try and shove them into the communist mode but explain to me how you can reconcile that with China's mode of doing business? Private owned companies, well developed stock market etc. Doesn't sound very communist to me, does it you comrade?

 

[Accountable]

Do you really think that a big system of government like Socialism can be summed up in one sentence and one idea? There's a lot more to it than that, same as collective farming was a lot more involved than simply being controlled by the government.

Which is precisely the danger of pigeonholing everything under general labels. Many Socialist ideas are good, which is why they're practiced on an individual basis. The danger comes in when government gets involved. When we try to force generosity and brotherhood through legislation, we usually get the opposite effect.

 

[Strauss]

I had absolutely no idea that China had a socialist government. China is more of a capitalist-totalitarian form of governance. Again, with North Korea, officially considered to be a 'Socialist republic', but evidence suggests otherwise, most would consider it a Stalinist dictatorship.

Most of the individuals that campaigned for workers rights in the 19th century and even today, would either identify themselves as Socialists, or at the very least Social Democrats. They certainly weren't free-market capitalists.

Having personally toured the factories in China I assure you they are socialist in how they treat the workers, From the morning allegiance to the leaders of the country to the multitude of posters urging on the "workers" to achieve even greater "prosperity" for the masses. They are so smoke filled death traps as to scare the living shit out of you when walk in. It becomes rapidity apparent that human life in China is a commodity like oil or coal or dirt, so long as you function and are productive you stay, slip up or get injured and your arse is out the door. The floor managers are very proud of that! So while there business model may have the flavor of capitalism I can assure you they are brutal socialists in how the businesses are govern.

 

[Peter Parka]

Bullcrap. Neither country, the former Soviet Union nor China were communist, they have always been socialist. You can try and shove them into the communist mode but explain to me how you can reconcile that with China's mode of doing business? Private owned companies, well developed stock market etc. Doesn't sound very communist to me, does it you comrade?

There really isn't a way to have an intelligent conversation with you about this where you come out with stuff like this.

 

[Accountable]

The problem there's dreamland communism and socialism, such as what we hear from Marx, '60s hippies & Edgray, and there's the gov't systems that carry the names, which often bear no resemblance.

 

[edgray]

Bullcrap. Neither country, the former Soviet Union nor China were communist, they have always been socialist. You can try and shove them into the communist mode but explain to me how you can reconcile that with China's mode of doing business? Private owned companies, well developed stock market etc. Doesn't sound very communist to me, does it you comrade?

Doesn't sound particularly socialist either.... Or in fact, at all...

 

[Strauss]

Doesn't sound particularly socialist either.... Or in fact, at all...

May not but it is what they claim and as to the Soviet Union, claimed.

 

[Strauss]

There really isn't a way to have an intelligent conversation with you about this where you come out with stuff like this.

Sounds like you only believe what you read but not what you actually see.

 

[edgray]

May not but it is what they claim and as to the Soviet Union, claimed.

The Soviets claimed communism.

None of the countries you mentioned are socialist, they fall down at the first hurdle - none are democratic.

 

[Alien Allen]

The soviets can claim all they want but they never followed thru to be communistic. They were/are socialists

 

[Strauss]

The Soviets claimed communism.

None of the countries you mentioned are socialist, they fall down at the first hurdle - none are democratic.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) .....hhhhhmmmm

 

[edgray]

The problem there's dreamland communism and socialism, such as what we hear from Marx, '60s hippies & Edgray, and there's the gov't systems that carry the names, which often bear no resemblance.

dreamland ... at this point it does seem like it's a dream. There's no escaping the fact that it's certainly a long way off...

I would never have lumped myself in with 60s hippies, don't really go along with the whole free love thing at all...

 

[edgray]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) .....hhhhhmmmm

One can call themselves anything they like, doesn't make it so. The russian's and poles I've met over the years speak only of communism. It's been regarded for a long time that the USSR was a state-capitalist system, and not a democratic one at all, meaning it simply doesn't bare resemblance to socialist philosophy.

 

[Peter Parka]

Sounds like you only believe what you read but not what you actually see.

No, I believe in facts or are you trying to tell me now that the well known Communist revolutions in Russia and China were just misleading names? :24:

 

[Meirionnydd]

One can call themselves anything they like, doesn't make it so. The russian's and poles I've met over the years speak only of communism. It's been regarded for a long time that the USSR was a state-capitalist system, and not a democratic one at all, meaning it simply doesn't bare resemblance to socialist philosophy.

So true. Actually. The North Korean constitution, in which it officially classifies North Korea as a 'socialist republic' also guarantees rights such as freedom of expression, suffrage, freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial.

Just because it is 'official', doesn't make it true.

 

[Accountable]

That's true. Just look at all the extra-constitutional liberties our current executive & legislature are taking.

 

[nova]

The intelligence you exude is staggering. "I am right and you are wrong" is pretty much all you can say to anything, isn't it? Oh, that and a bunch of childish insults.

Well, those no argument to be made when you're blatantly and ridiculously wrong. Just like if you walked in and told me the sky was green with pink polka dots. You're just fucking wrong.

Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others

But that's the whole point isn't it? Given the choice, you think most people would choose to work FOR someone, or WITH someone? Do you think they'd be better workers with a vested interest (WITH) or treated like a slave (FOR)?

People ARE given that choice and do every single day. Its called being an entrepreneur. I know you might not be familiar with it since most of Europe makes it damn near impossible but when left alone people do it. Anyone can do it and they can even have a partner or 10 or 100 and have that vested interest.

Most people DON'T make that choice because most people don't have the desire, drive or risk tolerance thats required to deal with the issues that go along with that vested interest. Thats why they choose to sell their labor as you would any other commodity.

Bully for you. If you're happy with that arrangement then fine. Many of us see the flaws in that system. You can go tell your boss to fuck off, please do, and then see how quickly you end up becoming a slave to another boss.

I wasn't a slave to begin with and I may or may not end up selling my labor to someone else. As I said above I could always start my own business depending upon how I feel. The fact remains though that no one is forcing me to work at gunpoint, which is the definition of slavery.

What you don't see here is that in a world where there are more people than jobs, like this one, the individual lacks the choice, the power is all in the hands of the bosses who, for the largest portion of your waking life, dictate what you do, how you do it, when you do it.

Again, thats a choice people make. They can choose to stop that anytime they wish. Pretty much the opposite of slavery.

See this is exactly the point you seem to totally not understand - THERE HAS BEEN NO EXPLOITATION. NO SUBJUGATION. NO REMOVAL OF LIBERTY. I don't know how to spell that out any simpler for you.

Really? Because in essence the speaking fees Mr. Chumpsky charges are in essence, a wage, the very thing you've been arguing equates to slavery. He agrees to come and do what they want for set period of time for a set amount of money. Have fun digging yourself out of that logical hole. :24:

Ultimately that wasn't the point. You claimed he hasn't profited greatly from his speaking slavery which I just proved patently false. $2 million dollars is pretty big chuck of "not profit." Never mind the other things that make him a big fat hypocrite.

Yes of course you can opt out of the system, and then not be in any position to change it. That'd be a great move!!!!

Completely and utterly not relevant. You said you can't opt out of the system, which I pointed out to be false. You can opt out of the system if you choose to.

Reality? Let's look at the reality of your beliefs:

You believe in the right to Life, Liberty and Property. Ok firstly Life is a given. Secondly Property, yup, everyone should have the right to own stuff. Also a given. Thirdly, let's look at Liberty.

In your minimal govt world, firstly you STILL have a govt, which is an encroachment on Liberty. You still have a hierarchical structure in society, which is an encroachment on liberty. You still have the majority of money and therefore power in the hands of the few. That is also an encroachment on liberty.

That, my friend, is what you might call a fail. Your idea of liberty is so childishly simplistic it's absolutely laughable.

Whats the epic fail is your reading comprehension because no matter how thoroughly I've explained my position, you are still completely and utterly clueless. Never not once have I ever claimed that any of the three fundamental rights is completely 100% unlimited. Again, reality escapes you....

The minute you threaten me with immediate physical harm, I can defend myself to the point of ending your life. There's your limit to life rights.

Property rights can be violated when its done to preserve the rights to life and liberty. There's your limit to property rights.

Liberty rights extend only so far as you're not infringing upon rights of others. There's your limit to liberty rights.

The only legitimate use for gov't is enforcing those boundaries on rights. And no, without being structured in law, a hierarchical society is not a liberty infringement. And with a minimalist gov't that is committed to protecting individual rights without excessive over broad power and authority for a person with money to buy, there is no liberty infringement.

No one is forcing anyone, by the way.

Based on prior discussions, that seems to be your goal...

Oh is that right?

Please watch the next video below. ALL he is concerned with is reality. He tells the truth, that's why people like you, and the establishment, hate him. He reasons like a true scholar, generates hypotheses and analyses through them with logic and reason. His contribution to the world of linguistics shows that he's an intellectual heavyweight. Try and reason your "reality" and your idea of a good model for society using traditional methods of analytics, logic and reason and you'll fall flat on your face because your system is a bad joke used as an excuse to pay less tax and fuck over the poor and vulnerable. You've been sold a lie, and you've bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Ahh, the old "he's just speaking truth to power" bullshit. The "truth" he's speaking is one that you left wing loonies want desperately to believe. Desperately enough in fact to line his pockets to the tune of several million dollars. Have fun lapping up his brand of "truth" Mr. Lap Dog.

Power hungry left? And the right isn't?!!!! Patriot act? War on Terror? Globalisation? Corporation driven media? The greed on the right is not only for money you know.

Patriot Act and the War on Terror weren't done by anyone I'd call conservative, especially not in the "classical liberal" sense of the word. They're much more in line with you left wingers. Neither is anything else you mentioned.

Now go back to polishing your boots and bayonet comrade. It'll be time to ship some more dissenters off to the gulag soon...

People listen to Chomsky because they want to hear the truth. You ignore him, which is a tragedy. Honestly, the US really doesn't realise what they have there - which is one of the greatest thinkers of our time.

The world will be a better place when he croaks.....

Why don't you actually watch the videos and try and counter his arguments? Especially the one I'll post next. Go on, be my guest. We both know you can't

Yet again, reading comprehension eludes you. As I've told you multiple times, I've heard all his bullshit before when I was forced to in college. Don't care to hear it again and don't care to waste my time arguing against a hypocrite who doesn't even attempt to practice what he preaches.

Who says he likes doing it? You putting words in his mouth?

If he didn't like doing it, he wouldn't. There's nobody holding a gun to his head forcing him to invest his money, especially not in companies that he has openly criticized. There are plenty of investment options for so called "responsible" corporations, there are money market funds, plain old savings accounts, and even the First United Bank of Mattress that he could choose from.

Instead the man who rants and raves against wage slavery, IP and all the things these companies stands for uses his earnings from wage slavery and IP to invest in these companies.

HYPOCRITE to the highest order and you suckers lap it up.

 

[edgray]

I was wondering when you were going to come back and spoil this nice debate we had going on with your usual vile spew...

Well, those no argument to be made when you're blatantly and ridiculously wrong. Just like if you walked in and told me the sky was green with pink polka dots. You're just fucking wrong.

Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're all well aware of the meaning of chattle slavery Nova. If you can't understand the meaning of wage slavery then there's little more I can do I'm afraid. You continue to be ignorantly happy subjugating yourself, renting yourself to a master.

This thread had began to show the benefits of the labour movement, benefits that you enjoy right now. These views are as old as democracy itself, well established and understood, and one of the drives behind the labour movement that has provided you with much more humane working conditions. Your disregard the struggles that have gone before aren't surprising, very common amongst you far-right extremists. The corporate tyrannies that you love so much didn't wake up one day and just say "let's give the workers some rights". These rights were hard earned by those that understand what these concepts are. You benefit from these things and show utter contempt for the movements and thoughts that brought them about.

People ARE given that choice and do every single day. Its called being an entrepreneur. I know you might not be familiar with it since most of Europe makes it damn near impossible but when left alone people do it. Anyone can do it and they can even have a partner or 10 or 100 and have that vested interest.

This is of course assuming that everyone starts on a level playing field. You are totally ignorant to the fact that not everyone can be entrepreneurs, not everyone has business acumen, not everyone has had the benefit of a great education or a safe upbringing. That not every industry can have entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is fine and dandy, but it accounts for a tiny, tiny fraction of what is possible in society. Much of the advancement of society relies on cooperation, not individuals.

Europe makes it damn near impossible? An incredibly ignorant statement Nova. Clearly you know nothing of this continent.

Most people DON'T make that choice because most people don't have the desire, drive or risk tolerance thats required to deal with the issues that go along with that vested interest. Thats why they choose to sell their labor as you would any other commodity.

So for the fact that they don't have those qualities they should essentially have their choices taken away and forced into a life of wage-slavery?

I wasn't a slave to begin with and I may or may not end up selling my labor to someone else. As I said above I could always start my own business depending upon how I feel. The fact remains though that no one is forcing me to work at gunpoint, which is the definition of slavery.

No one is forcing you at gunpoint, this is true. But you're being forced. Money has to be earnt, taxes have to be paid. You could go and start your own business, if you're lucky enough to have that mindset. Tell that to a nurse, or a cop, or a factory worker...

Again, thats a choice people make. They can choose to stop that anytime they wish. Pretty much the opposite of slavery.

Yeah, hell of a choice: Wage slave or starvation...

Really? Because in essence the speaking fees Mr. Chumpsky charges are in essence, a wage, the very thing you've been arguing equates to slavery. He agrees to come and do what they want for set period of time for a set amount of money. Have fun digging yourself out of that logical hole. :24:

This is how Mr Chomsky, and you'd do well to show a little respect their because he's ten times the human being that you are, spreads his word, raises debate and tells the truth.

Ultimately that wasn't the point. You claimed he hasn't profited greatly from his speaking slavery which I just proved patently false. $2 million dollars is pretty big chuck of "not profit." Never mind the other things that make him a big fat hypocrite.

For such a successful author and highly quoted individual, $2 million is a pretty small amount. Pales in comparison against the fortune 500 list.

Completely and utterly not relevant. You said you can't opt out of the system, which I pointed out to be false. You can opt out of the system if you choose to.

sure ok. why would he want to drop out of the system? it's people like him that are actually getting of their arses and changing things.

Whats the epic fail is your reading comprehension because no matter how thoroughly I've explained my position, you are still completely and utterly clueless. Never not once have I ever claimed that any of the three fundamental rights is completely 100% unlimited. Again, reality escapes you....

Actually, that's what you've stated in the past your hate-filled society would be based on.

The minute you threaten me with immediate physical harm, I can defend myself to the point of ending your life. There's your limit to life rights.

That's the limit of life rights?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!! My God man, you're a psycho!

Property rights can be violated when its done to preserve the rights to life and liberty. There's your limit to property rights.

Liberty rights extend only so far as you're not infringing upon rights of others. There's your limit to liberty rights.

The only legitimate use for gov't is enforcing those boundaries on rights. And no, without being structured in law, a hierarchical society is not a liberty infringement. And with a minimalist gov't that is committed to protecting individual rights without excessive over broad power and authority for a person with money to buy, there is no liberty infringement.

a hierarchical society is of course an infringement on liberty. Your view of liberty is too simplistic - you should read up on Liberty and Freedom, they are incredibly complex subjects that go way beyond the boundaries of your simplistic world view.

Based on prior discussions, that seems to be your goal...

ummm...

Ahh, the old "he's just speaking truth to power" bullshit. The "truth" he's speaking is one that you left wing loonies want desperately to believe. Desperately enough in fact to line his pockets to the tune of several million dollars. Have fun lapping up his brand of "truth" Mr. Lap Dog.

Ok, so, in the link that accountable posted, why do you think they're attacking the man and not the words? Simple, because Chomsky speaks the truth. He tells of news that is never reported by the media, that cannot be refuted, and forms explanations based on those. This is why he's considered, not just by me, but by many, to be the most important intellectual alive today.

The fact that he tells truths that you don't want to hear isn't his fault, just rather a sign of the brainwashing you've swallowed.

Patriot Act and the War on Terror weren't done by anyone I'd call conservative, especially not in the "classical liberal" sense of the word. They're much more in line with you left wingers. Neither is anything else you mentioned.

Ok WOW. So now Bush and his cohorts are left wing??!!!!!!!!!!???!!?!?!?!!?!?!??!?!??!?

I'm sorry Nova, I really don't know what to say to that.

Now go back to polishing your boots and bayonet comrade. It'll be time to ship some more dissenters off to the gulag soon...

References to Russian gaols? What the hell? Now you've moved from being ignorant to just being childish. This thread was enjoying a nice peaceful debate until you showed up.

The world will be a better place when he croaks.....

Why? Because then a voice against your love of corporate tyranny is gone. What a nasty thing to say Nova, you're really showing your true, hated-filled colours now, aren't you?

Yet again, reading comprehension eludes you. As I've told you multiple times, I've heard all his bullshit before when I was forced to in college. Don't care to hear it again and don't care to waste my time arguing against a hypocrite who doesn't even attempt to practice what he preaches.

What exactly is he preaching? I doubt very much you even understand.

If he didn't like doing it, he wouldn't. There's nobody holding a gun to his head forcing him to invest his money, especially not in companies that he has openly criticized. There are plenty of investment options for so called "responsible" corporations, there are money market funds, plain old savings accounts, and even the First United Bank of Mattress that he could choose from.

Sure ok whatever you say. His investment choices are really down to Chomsky. He's never once said: Don't invest. Don't buy this, don't invest in that.

 

[edgray]

Instead the man who rants and raves against wage slavery, IP and all the things these companies stands for uses his earnings from wage slavery and IP to invest in these companies.

Actually if you ever bothered to listen to his "rants", he merely points these things out. He doesn't tell you what to do.

HYPOCRITE to the highest order and you suckers lap it up.

A hypocrite is a person who runs their lives in one way but tells others to not do that.

I've never once heard Mr Chomsky say "don't invest". So no, Mr Chomsky doesn't qualify in that regard I'm afraid.

He doesn't tell people what to do except to investigate things, look for the truth and make up their own minds. Again, how can you even argue against someone when you simply do not have the brain power to understand them?