Switch Theme:

100th year of the REVOLUTION  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
[DCM]
Moustache-twirling Princeps





Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry

 sebster wrote:
And India is still far from being a developed modern country. A significant portion of its people still live in slums and have to scavenge their food from garbage dumps. It also was a part of Great Britain, so not really useful for comparisons.
India wasn't part of Great Britain, it was part of the Commonwealth. The difference is huge.
India was part of the British Empire, Just to be picky The Empire collapsed into becoming the Commonwealth.
The points stated still stand, though.

6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 4000 pts - 1000 pts - 1000 pts DS:70+S+G++MB+IPw40k86/f+D++A++/cWD64R+T(T)DM+
IG/AM force nearly-finished pieces: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-38888-41159_Armies%20-%20Imperial%20Guard.html
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw (probably)
Clubs around Coventry, UK https://discord.gg/6Gk7Xyh5Bf 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Could we drop the nationalistic fetishism? Sebster's not even American,

Oh wow. That is so bad on my part. Sorry Seb. Somehow I must have looked at the wrong poster when searching for a flag.
But yeah. We also do not need Australians to tell us what to celebrate or what is good. Nor Swedes for that matter.


Why don't we ask the Finns, or the Estonians, or the Poles how great the Soviet Union was, eh?

Or we could drop this ridiculous notion that someone's nationality disqualifies them from discussing the political situation in another country. You know, like I asked.


My mom's family immigrated to the US from Lithuania, there is NO positive opinion on the Soviet Union from there. The neatest part of learning about that heritage was going to the Litnuanian museum and genealogy center (failing on the actual name of the establishment) and seeing half the museum was dedicated to the resistance to the Soviet Union, and the ultimate price paid by SEVERAL Lithuanians in the process. Also formed more of an opinion of the Soviet government than 20 years of "capitalist propaganda" ever could.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:
Funnily enough, the only viable version of socialism is borne out of capitalism by advancing so far in technology that human labour of any kind is redundant.


Which is kind of the principle of Marxism.


So the ideology that was borne out of and exists to advocate for the benefit of the worker and to setup the worker as the ruling class advocates for the abolition of the workers?


The abolition of workers having to work for other people's profit to survive, yes. Marx was quite explicit in that capitalism was needed in order to let humanity society progress to a point where it was feasible for the workers to unite and seize the means of production. He was off by more than a little regarding when this'd happen (if indeed it ever will) though.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut




 sebster wrote:
There is, ultimately, something at the core of communism that is about control first and foremost, and that control is enforced with whatever means necessary. People will happily point out that there is exploitation at the core of capitalism, this is widely accepted and barely argued against. But the thing is that over time many countries have found ways of mitigating the exploitation of capitalism.

And yet people deny that the core of communism isn't that desire to control. Perhaps because of that there's never been an instance where that desire has been mitigated or reduced in any way.


To say that communism is in part about a desire to control is trivially true but it's dishonest to not specify that it's about the desire for the working class to control the means of production. Capitalism is also about a desire to control, specifically the desire for the capitalist class to control the means of production. That capitalism is fundamentally about a very small group controlling how resources are extracted, distributed and used has not and can not be mitigated. Social democracy is a compromise that can only come into existence when there is a strong workers' movement and that can only continue to exist when there is a strong communist power to show the capitalists and the workers that there is an alternative to capitalism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, social democracy has eroded to the point that current Swedish social democrats will weep and wail about the red menace whenever someone takes a position that they proudly held twenty years ago.

And there most definitely are those who argue against capitalism being inescapably exploitative. Pick any free marketeer. We got one earlier in the thread.
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This quote just sums up the completely simplistic and pointless argument that socialism is evil. Plenty of countries are social democracies without them ending up as hellholes. In a decent world there should always be an element of socialism mixed in, its unavoidable in running states. Sign of the times I guess.


Social democracies aren't actually socialist. They're capitalistic systems that have cherrypicked the good and realistic parts of socialism and discarded the rest, which manifest in heavy investment in social programs.

Hence why I used the term social democracies, which is different from a socialist country. They are a mix of capitalist and socialist systems that can work pretty well. Implementing socialist policies doesn't mean ending up as a hell hole like the quote from 1962 I responded to indicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:

To attribute it to "post-war revisionism" and uphold capitalism is hilarious because Western capitalists immediately set to work on rehabilitating nazis so they could use them as agents against communism.

What the holy hell is this? Is this a european thing?

While Rosebuddy goes way too far in the capitalist aspect, which is not a European thing, the rehabilitating part is mostly true yet very onesided. Denazification programs weren't very thorough and the sheer amount of skilled people that had belonged to the Nazi party was just too large. So many Nazis ended up unpunished and working in the new governments because their skills were needed to rebuild the country. They didn't all walk of course, but there were problematic undertones. The SU did this to a lesser extent and was a lot harsher when it came to German PoWs and Nazis, but they had no problem sparing the valuable ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 sebster wrote:
There is, ultimately, something at the core of communism that is about control first and foremost, and that control is enforced with whatever means necessary. People will happily point out that there is exploitation at the core of capitalism, this is widely accepted and barely argued against. But the thing is that over time many countries have found ways of mitigating the exploitation of capitalism.

And yet people deny that the core of communism isn't that desire to control. Perhaps because of that there's never been an instance where that desire has been mitigated or reduced in any way.


To say that communism is in part about a desire to control is trivially true but it's dishonest to not specify that it's about the desire for the working class to control the means of production. Capitalism is also about a desire to control, specifically the desire for the capitalist class to control the means of production. That capitalism is fundamentally about a very small group controlling how resources are extracted, distributed and used has not and can not be mitigated.

But to get to equality and controlling the means of production in 'pure' socialism you need a different kind of control than in capitalism. Where capitalism is mostly about money as a control method, 'pure' socialism is about politcal control on an authoritarian level, because it will have to push through certain measures that go against a certain part of society. But to achieve 'pure' socialism in the 20th century context you needed 'pure' humans so to speak. Because every attempt at communism in the real world ended up with people liking the amount of control they had, creating a new elite and wealthy class plus doing some pretty terrible things to satisfy grudges. In the second world communist states in history the governments needed absolute power to reform society. But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 20th century communism failed in part because its leaders were corrupt, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and even Castro were not averse to giving themselves a leg up, they were crazier than your average person to boot. Plus once you have authoritarian power, its hard to give it up. Untill the end, most communists regimes still were one man shows (even if they don't have to be), even now its another Castro or the new Mao in the form of Xi.

We can move closer to 'pure' socialism. But it can't be done by force, because its been tried by force and it ends up in the same authoritarian police state or failure every time.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 13:09:53


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 oldravenman3025 wrote:
As for the last part, that's a load of nonsense. Capitalism and free market economics are based of the principles of "make it or break it on your own", or voluntary participation. And cut the nonsense about workers being virtual slaves of the system working out of fear. People get jobs and work for the other guy to make a living, and get a paycheck. But there are options. You can A: Start your own business or B: Become a leech living off of the taxpayers.


It's hardly "voluntary" when your choices are work or starve to death. And the welfare programs that might replace "literally starve to death" with "suffer a miserable existence in extreme poverty" only exist because we have collectively decided that unrestricted capitalism is not ok and implemented socialist principles.

What matters is that both are tyrannical philosophies that leads to mass death and oppression of the masses.


And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
I blame the education system because in many, many ways... Communism is just as abhorrent as Nazism.


Yes, of course, "capital should be collectively owned and used for the common good" and "we should exterminate the lesser races" are definitely moral equivalents...

"Shackle of capitalism"... wut?


Yes, shackles of capitalism. That thing where you work yourself to death so that some wealthy investment banker can press a couple of buttons once a day from their billion-dollar luxury yacht. Capitalism is a system of massive inequality and suffering, and the only reason anyone can believe otherwise is that no sane society allows capitalism to exist without limits.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 13:38:28


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The abolition of workers having to work for other people's profit to survive, yes. Marx was quite explicit in that capitalism was needed in order to let humanity society progress to a point where it was feasible for the workers to unite and seize the means of production. He was off by more than a little regarding when this'd happen (if indeed it ever will) though.


Then he seems to have misread what I said. Let me be clearer: Viable socialism rises from the natural evolution (not revolution) of capitalism where technology advances to such point where any kind of human labour becomes obsolete. This both kills capitalism and marxism as it is currently understood. As for the timeframe, well I wouldn't expect it in our lifetimes nor in the lifetimes of our great grandchildren, and this is being generous in assumption that socialists stop trying to topple capitalism by means of revolution, which only serves to hinder the progress.
Capitalism might not be perfect (corporatism really needs to be squished), but it is by far the best system we have.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Hence why I used the term social democracies, which is different from a socialist country. They are a mix of capitalist and socialist systems that can work pretty well. Implementing socialist policies doesn't mean ending up as a hell hole like the quote from 1962 I responded to indicated.


Then why are you using social democracies as a defense for socialism when you know the relation is only tangential?



 Peregrine wrote:

It's hardly "voluntary" when your choices are work or starve to death. And the welfare programs that might replace "literally starve to death" with "suffer a miserable existence in extreme poverty" only exist because we have collectively decided that unrestricted capitalism is not ok and implemented socialist principles.


Is this supposed to be criticism of capitalism or socialism? Because in socialism you are forced to have a job or be branded a parasite that is to be removed.


And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing.


As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means. What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?
Communism is basically Tall Poppy Syndrome in form of an ideology.


Yes, of course, "capital should be collectively owned and used for the common good" and "we should exterminate the lesser races" are definitely moral equivalents...


"At least there is no racial component in our genocide." They certainly did genocide an entire class of people. The bourgeoisie.
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







OgreOnAStick wrote:

Is this supposed to be criticism of capitalism or socialism? Because in socialism you are forced to have a job or be branded a parasite that is to be removed.

I know it's from the opposite end of the spectrum, but whenever I hear the word 'parasite' used in this sort of context, it just makes me think of this.




 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

OgreOnAStick wrote:


As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means. What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?
Communism is basically Tall Poppy Syndrome in form of an ideology.


One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 15:36:36


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[
One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.


Is the ability to benefit from such system not a skilll those people possess? Also, you didn't refute it.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

In recent news it turns out that Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett between them own more wealth than the bottom 160 million of US citizen put together.

Did those three guys create all that wealth by their own means?

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 Kilkrazy wrote:
In recent news it turns out that Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett between them own more wealth than the bottom 160 million of US citizen put together.

Did those three guys create all that wealth by their own means?


Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:

And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing.


As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means. What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?
Communism is basically Tall Poppy Syndrome in form of an ideology.


One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.


AW has the way of it.

You can't have violence free communism for humans without: 1) being in Heaven; 2) a nonscarcity economy (not possible outside of us being energy beings); 3) literally messing up the genetic code to remove a whole lot of things and get us to the level of ants.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




You might want to reread the original posts, because AW bungled the quotations (and so did you for that matter).
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
In recent news it turns out that Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett between them own more wealth than the bottom 160 million of US citizen put together.

Did those three guys create all that wealth by their own means?


Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.


None of them created all that wealth by themselves. They all employ staff who actually did the bulk of the work.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






OgreOnAStick wrote:
Is this supposed to be criticism of capitalism or socialism? Because in socialism you are forced to have a job or be branded a parasite that is to be removed.


Lolwut? Seriously, what?

As long as communism advocates for the redistribution of wealth, it is inherently oppressive towards those who gained their wealth by their own means.


No more so than the oppression inherent in that gaining of wealth "by their own means". Which, of course, is no such thing. You can't gain wealth purely by your own means, you depend on the labor of others. And if you're gaining significant wealth you're doing it through an oppressive system that overwhelmingly favors keeping the wealthy and powerful in their privileged position at the expense of everyone else.

What do you think will happen when someone refuses to redistribute their wealth?


The same thing that happens when someone refuses to pay their taxes in the US: fines, prison, eventual suicide by cop if they continue to resist.

"At least there is no racial component in our genocide." They certainly did genocide an entire class of people. The bourgeoisie.


First of all, that's an absurd misuse of the term "genocide". Second, mass death is not required. The bourgeoisie can pay their taxes like everyone else and continue to be a part of civil society.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 Kilkrazy wrote:
[


None of them created all that wealth by themselves. They all employ staff who actually did the bulk of the work.


Just because their ideas were successful enough to warrant employment of others does not mean they did not create it.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

OgreOnAStick wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[
One could just as easily turn that around and argue that Capitalism is oppressive because the people making a buttload of money are convinced that they're rich because of their own excellency when they're just benefitting from a system that unfairly distributes wealth to certain kinds of people.


Is the ability to benefit from such system not a skilll those people possess? Also, you didn't refute it.


The entire point is that it's only "oppressive" if you're assuming that a certain type of property is a God-given right and not a social construct. The rich person sees taxation as theft, whereas the poor person sees his refusal to pay taxes and support the system that made him able to be rich in the first place as theft.

You're right, I didn't refute your statement because it's accurate. The redistribution of wealth is coercive. The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that something being coercive automatically makes it bad.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






OgreOnAStick wrote:
Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.


They created something, but they didn't do it on their own. Take away the many supporting inventions, and their countless lower-level workers and they have nothing. Bill Gates is not obscenely rich without other people inventing the computer. Jeff Bezos is not obscenely rich without having tons of people working in his warehouses for poverty-level wages, allowing him to undercut his competition's prices. Warren Buffet is the textbook example of profiting from the work of others. He didn't build anything, he simply directed money between people and took a share of the profits. He's a parasite on the economy, taking immense wealth while contributing nothing of value in return.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ca
Huge Hierodule






Outflanking

Fascism=Pride

Communism=Envy

Capitalism=Greed

Fans of Fullmetal Alchemist may remember which of these was a good guy...

Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?

A: A Maniraptor 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 Peregrine wrote:

Lolwut? Seriously, what?


Your argument was that in X you are forced to work or starve. This is applies to both capitalism and socialism.


No more so than the oppression inherent in that gaining of wealth "by their own means".

The same thing that happens when someone refuses to pay their taxes in the US: fines, prison, eventual suicide by cop if they continue to resist.


Your claim (see below) was that communism wasn't inherently tyrannical. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

"And communism is not inherently tyrannical or an inevitable cause of mass death and oppression. Communism and Stalinism are not the same thing."




Which, of course, is no such thing. You can't gain wealth purely by your own means, you depend on the labor of others. And if you're gaining significant wealth you're doing it through an oppressive system that overwhelmingly favors keeping the wealthy and powerful in their privileged position at the expense of everyone else.


Mm.. Yummy carrot, which I grew myself in a planter pot in the balcony. Am I not enjoying the fruits of my own labour? Since building my own wealth is apparently not a thing, I suppose the money I made from selling the excess carrots do not belong to me either.

First of all, that's an absurd misuse of the term "genocide". Second, mass death is not required. The bourgeoisie can pay their taxes like everyone else and continue to be a part of civil society.


It falls entirely within the definition of genocide (see below). There are no taxes in communism since private property is not a concept in communism and since (as demonstrated above) you are oppressing the bourgeoisie through jailing (people in prison don't breed) or killing them, yes the communists are waging a war of extermination on them.

Spoiler:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

Definition of genocide
:the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Peregrine wrote:
OgreOnAStick wrote:
Yes, they created something that people wanted. And because the people wanted it, they paid for it.


They created something, but they didn't do it on their own. Take away the many supporting inventions, and their countless lower-level workers and they have nothing. Bill Gates is not obscenely rich without other people inventing the computer. Jeff Bezos is not obscenely rich without having tons of people working in his warehouses for poverty-level wages, allowing him to undercut his competition's prices. Warren Buffet is the textbook example of profiting from the work of others. He didn't build anything, he simply directed money between people and took a share of the profits. He's a parasite on the economy, taking immense wealth while contributing nothing of value in return.


Indeed. However this thread is about communism. To equate, take 1-25% of your workforce, put them on trial, and then send them to Alaska and work them to death drilling for oil.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 15:58:12


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

OgreOnAStick wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:


Which, of course, is no such thing. You can't gain wealth purely by your own means, you depend on the labor of others. And if you're gaining significant wealth you're doing it through an oppressive system that overwhelmingly favors keeping the wealthy and powerful in their privileged position at the expense of everyone else.


Mm.. Yummy carrot, which I grew myself in a planter pot in the balcony. Am I not enjoying the fruits of my own labour? Since building my own wealth is apparently not a thing, I suppose the money I made from selling the excess carrots do not belong to me either.


Today I learned that excess carrots are significant wealth, and that being unable to gain wealth purely by your own means it's impossible to contribute to your own wealth at all.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 16:08:11


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 Peregrine wrote:


They created something, but they didn't do it on their own. Take away the many supporting inventions, and their countless lower-level workers and they have nothing. Bill Gates is not obscenely rich without other people inventing the computer. Jeff Bezos is not obscenely rich without having tons of people working in his warehouses for poverty-level wages, allowing him to undercut his competition's prices. Warren Buffet is the textbook example of profiting from the work of others. He didn't build anything, he simply directed money between people and took a share of the profits. He's a parasite on the economy, taking immense wealth while contributing nothing of value in return.


And each of these innovators were compensated by the sales of their own inventions. This also applies to the workers who were compensated for the services of work and time they provided.
Just because their actions were distasteful, does not mean that they have not generated their wealth through their own actions and choices. And as I have stated before, corporatism and crony capitalism are a bad thing for capitalism.

However, enough with the whataboutery on capitalism and lets go back to the topic of communism.


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Today I learned that excess carrots are significant wealth, and that being unable to gain wealth purely by your own means it's impossible to contribute to your own wealth at all.


The scale of wealth is irrelevant, only thing matters is that one can generate their own wealth. Also, where did I state that self generated wealth is the only form of wealth?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/09 16:19:40


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

OgreOnAStick wrote:



 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Today I learned that excess carrots are significant wealth, and that being unable to gain wealth purely by your own means it's impossible to contribute to your own wealth at all.


The scale of wealth is irrelevant, only thing matters is that one can generate their own wealth. Also, where did I state that self generated wealth is the only form of wealth?


Where has anyone disputed that?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Where has anyone disputed that?


Heavily implied by Peregrine and Kilkrazy by their attack on the concept of self generated wealth. Or did you refer to the scale of wealth generation? In which, case that would be you in your mocking statement about the carrot example.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Honestly, on second thought even your carrot example isn't purely self-generated wealth. You're still benefitting from society, whether you want to or not.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in fi
Fresh-Faced New User




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, on second thought even your carrot example isn't purely self-generated wealth. You're still benefitting from society, whether you want to or not.


Then I'll just move the the carrot patch into a hypothetical location where there are no other people. The carrots are still form of wealth as I can attribute value to them by eating them. The presence of society is also irrelevant.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/09 16:41:05


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Hmm... wasn't the principle of Comunism the nationalization of the means of production? Where this "Redistribution of Wealth" comes from? In Communism/Socialism everybody is free to make as much money as they want as long as they earn it without taking advantage of the work force of other workers.


And to be honest I don't understand why people uses today ethics to call Lenin and their revolutionaries a bunch of violent thugs. Wherent the French ones the same?
In that same year, in Spain we were under a dictadure, followed by a Republic, followed by a Civil War, and followed by another Dictadure. I know that in USA things wheren't as chaotic, but the 1910-1940 period was a very bloody period in most of Europe. Most of Europe was killing each other in that age.

I know, it could have been ideal if all revolutions in history where made Gandhi's style, but thats isn't how history works.
Personally, I'm totally opposed to the Ideology of Franquism, but I'm not gonna call the right-wing groups in 1920-1936 in Spain assasins, because both right and left wing, in that age, where literally killing each other on the streets.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, on second thought even your carrot example isn't purely self-generated wealth. You're still benefitting from society, whether you want to or not.

...and?

We still pay taxes that funds the government.


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: