Go fucking start your own communist island

[యూజర్ పేరు]

If you all hate rich people so much, maybe you and all your anti-wealth friends should pool your money together and buy an island, where you could run the economy the way you want to.

In communism, there are no rich people. It would be perfect for you guys.

[Faby]

I discern butthurt

[యూజర్ పేరు]

I'm tired of hearing you guys complain about rich people and making empty threats about revolting. Either do something or stop complaining.

[HeartofShadows]

Hahaha!

Bobman your losing your calm asian exterior.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Also Communism has a government you dip!

[Ceiling Cat]

BobManPerson Wrote:I'm tired of hearing you guys complain about rich people and making empty threats about revolting. Either do something or stop complaining.

crysomemore.wav

[Rebelnerd]

All the islands are owned by rich people!

[యూజర్ పేరు]

Rebelnerd Wrote:All the islands are owned by rich people!

That's why I said to buy your own. There's a lot for sale.

[aaaaaaasd]

bobman do you have any idea of how expensive any one of those islands are

[HeartofShadows]

Hey Bobman why don't you buy us an island?

Sure your family can go without buying a new jet for the week.

[Swift]

Communism, ie a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, whose economy practices exchanges of commodities, and is democratic ran by worker's councils, cannot happen on one island.

Communism is supposed to liberate the entire earth, not just one tiny island. I have a feeling you haven't the slightest clue what communism is Mememan, no matter how many times what Ceiling Cat, Rebelnerd, and me have told you.

[యూజర్ పేరు]

HeartofShadows Wrote:Hey Bobman why don't you buy us an island?

Sure your family can go without buying a new jet for the week.

My family isn't as rich as you think we are.

[Cilaos]

And the working class isn't anywhere near as lazy as you think they are.

[John Tuttle]

Zherneboh Wrote:And the working class isn't anywhere near as lazy as you think they are.

You realize that the term "working class" is extremely outdated? It is like the term "peasant." In any modern economy, the true "working class" espoused by communism (factory workers) only makes up a fraction of the populace, not the majority. Unless you count the working class as anyone with a job, which, in that case, you have to factor in doctors, lawyers, CEOS, et cetera.

[~Mystery~]

The people need to own the means of production. I don't wanna starve because the Government won't let me grow my own garden.

[Swift]

John Tuttle Wrote:

Zherneboh Wrote:And the working class isn't anywhere near as lazy as you think they are.

You realize that the term "working class" is extremely outdated? It is like the term "peasant." In any modern economy, the true "working class" espoused by communism (factory workers) only makes up a fraction of the populace, not the majority. Unless you count the working class as anyone with a job, which, in that case, you have to factor in doctors, lawyers, CEOS, et cetera.

The Working Class are those who don't control the means of production. That makes up the majority of the population.

[Rebelnerd]

John Tuttle Wrote:You realize that the term "working class" is extremely outdated? It is like the term "peasant." In any modern economy, the true "working class" espoused by communism (factory workers) only makes up a fraction of the populace, not the majority. Unless you count the working class as anyone with a job, which, in that case, you have to factor in doctors, lawyers, CEOS, et cetera.

There is nothing outdated about the term "working class," and even if it was, you can't just take one term written by Marx in the 1840s, call it outdated, and then write off the entire theory of collective ownership as bullshit. Here's a graph you might have seen:

[John Tuttle]

Rebelnerd Wrote:

You have to be joking. That graph is better suited to scare people than it is to portray facts. Why not make a similar graph comparing how much taxes each group pays, and then which groups receive the most back? Then you will find out who is relying on who.

This is a good response that I found from teh interwebz

Quote:I find this chart misleading.

It’s entirely true, of course, but there’s more to the story, I think.

The richest fifth of the world receives 80% of the global income because it is producing about 80% of the world’s wealth. And they don’t keep that wealth; they keep the income. They give the wealth to the world, and we as the world give them capital.

Think about this. Maybe I don’t make a lot of money, but I’m typing on a computer developed by people who are in that richest bracket. I’m using Windows–an operating system developed by a man who is one of the most notoriously wealthy persons alive. Even if I make a good living, the fortune he has accumulated will forever dwarf mine. But in return, I can use his software on this computer at a very, very reasonable price. And this is true for millions of people. So I think he has earned that extravagant income of his for enriching the lives of the masses.

I think Paul Graham, one of the developers of the Yahoo! Stores online web-building software, says it best in his collection of essays called Hackers and Painters:

“You need rich people in your society not so much because in spending their money they create jobs, but because of what they have to do to get rich. I’m not talking about the trickle-down effect here. I’m not saying that if you let Henry Ford get rich, he’ll hire you as a waiter at his next party. I’m saying that he’ll make you a tractor to replace your horse.”

Is it not a coincidence that those nations whom have liberated their markets and attracted investment by lowering taxes for companies have also experience rapid growth in the quality of life for all of their citizens? You cannot deny that. Look at South Korea! Singapore! Switzerland! Compare West and East Germany! I'd rather of lived in the West, though I'm sure that you would take any opportunity to move to the East.

[Swift]

It's funny you say that.

Really funny:

[John Tuttle]

Firstly, the Soviet Union was larger than modern Russia - it contained Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Secondly, the USSR largely inflated much of the statistics relating to it.
Thirdly, modern Russia is not a free society like the ones that I listed. It is controlled by oligarchs. Note- I have never argued that corporations should rule nations (like in Russia), but, rather, that they are very important in nations (otherwise you end up with North Korea.) I also support regulative governments.

[యూజర్ పేరు]

Comrade Swift Wrote:It's funny you say that.

Really funny:

[img]http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/10/NewsweekRussia-full-2009-10-12.jpg[img]

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Swift]

BobManPerson Wrote:

Comrade Swift Wrote:It's funny you say that.

Really funny:

[img]http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/10/NewsweekRussia-full-2009-10-12.jpg[img]

Correlation does not imply causation.

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though it does not remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise)"

[John Tuttle]

I was born in the 90s! The Russian people have suffered ever since the USSR fell! I caused it!

OK, if you want to argue that Russia was better off under Gorbachev, I can accept that. However, that is because Gorbachev worked to increase economic freedoms (see Perestroika and Glasnost), and that since he held so much power, there was no problem with monopolizing technocrats. However, that is solely due to the fact that Gorbachev was a good man. He could of just as easily used the USSR to commit horrible acts. Unfortunately, due to the increasing personal freedoms, the people no longer feared the USSR, and declared independence based on ethnic backgrounds. In reality, the fall of the USSR had much more to do with Gorbachev than Reagan or Thatcher. If Gorbachev had slowed down, he could of potentially turned Russia into a state like China - highly centralized, but with a capitalist system, and, then, once the people were richer and less prone to ethnic violence, he could of introduced personal freedoms.

[psychopath]

Most rich people are rich because they exploit other people. They try to justify it with bobman-ish excuses like "Stop complaining you poor pplz". Read "Rich dad poor dad" and it's riddled with these excuses. Like "Rich people understand money" "Poor people complain but don't adapt", ETC ETC. It's just an excuse.

Sure, poor people don't know or use the exploits that rich people use, but these exploits are an attack on others and are not right.

[John Tuttle]

Not all money-making is due to exploitation. I will admit, that happens a lot in America (see: health insurance companies.) I never said that America's system was perfect though. You can be a capitalist and still support government oversight and regulation - look at Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting for a historical example. I support both economic and social liberalism, not one of the other. Unfortunately, neither of the two big US parties follows this ideal.

[Sunbourn]

Comrade Swift Wrote:It's funny you say that.

Really funny:

Hidden stuff:

I like how that image considers the number of cinemas to be a major factor in whether or not Russia would have been better off. Person who made that must've been a big movie buff.

[John Tuttle]

|55555| Wrote:I like how that image considers the number of cinemas to be a major factor in whether or not Russia would have been better off. Person who made that must've been a big movie buff.

I guess that it is a sign of the strength of the economy. Like I said, I can accept that Russia was better off during towards the end of the USSR than it is today - but only because of Gorbachev.

[psychopath]

John Tuttle Wrote:Not all money-making is due to exploitation.

Yes that's why I said most, that's why I don't think we should put all wealthy people on a list and behead them.

[John Tuttle]

psychopath Wrote:

John Tuttle Wrote:Not all money-making is due to exploitation.

Yes that's why I said most, that's why I don't think we should put all wealthy people on a list and behead them.

Agreed. I am by no means a social darwinist or survival of the fittest type of person. In fact, I will admit that socialism has some good points. I cringe when morons like Glenn Beck say shit like "SOCIALISM = NATIONAL SOCIALISTS = COMMUNISTS = MUSLIMS = OBAMAZ!!!!!!!!!" They obviously have no grasp on the concept of socialism.

[HeartofShadows]

BobManPerson Wrote:

HeartofShadows Wrote:Hey Bobman why don't you buy us an island?

Sure your family can go without buying a new jet for the week.

My family isn't as rich as you think we are.

Nah I just like messing with you.

[John Tuttle]

BobManPerson Wrote:

HeartofShadows Wrote:Hey Bobman why don't you buy us an island?

Sure your family can go without buying a new jet for the week.

My family isn't as rich as you think we are.

So, like, a jet every month?