War on humanity

[Frank Bemelman]

"KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.1afe22ae423a8cb49897d2@news1.news.adelphia.net...

In article <40942395$0$25632$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
f.bemelmanx@planet.invalid.nl says...
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> schreef in bericht
news768909hlgbtgq50kvfdpdaa91fk3ntt60@4ax.com...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 17:03:10 +0000 (UTC), OtherPeoplesShoes
NoSpam@DontEmailHere.com> wrote:

[snipped all reference to RSW :-]

If you were a Palestinian, living in Gaza, how would you react to the
current situation?

No I'm not winding you up - serious question - I'd like to hear your
opinion

Regards OPS

They *should* be happy because Israel is pulling out of Gaza. In
reality they're in a panic... the populace will now see that their
sorrowful life is due to the Palestinian Authority.

It's also a lot easier for Isreal to bomb the shit out of Gaza, once
they left.

Another good idea! What a wonderful plan! Defence and offence
all in one fence! The Palestinian pissed away their best offer
years ago. It's just taken a while for reality to set in, both
in Israel and the US. Reality will never again set in in Europe,
I fear. ...not that they have anything of interest. ;-)

I am not suggesting that it will actually happen, nor that it is
a good plan. I just see a possibility, meanwhile not believing
in free lunches.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 02 May 2004 05:51:54 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40948D3E.3A27@armory.com>:

How would you then define your version of communism?
--------------------------
Equal right to own a home one inherits from our whole species,
making charging anyone rent or mortgage for their home an
executable offense.

Equal pay per hour for all workers, all pay for productive labor
ONLY. Banking, insurance, speculation, and profiteering off the
labor of others is an executable offense. Paper wealth is ended.

Anyone who doesn't work is barred from access to food till he
reports to be assigned work.

Goods are ordered by workers, the order produces authorization
for labor, and the labor hours to manufacture them, plus labor
hours which are the cost of the support of the disabled and
elderly, per item in the lot, is the price for the consumer item.

Retirement, Education and Medical care and all Utilities such as
power, water, heat, telecom, television, and other such public
entitlements are guaranteed by the People to everyone who works.

All other property other than residential is owned by the People,
who control it by direct Local Democracy.


Now I am curious?
Because I can see no way to fit it in other remarks you made?
JP
--------------------------
Just GoogleNews Me and read for hours.
I don't need to type it all in again.

-Steve
I did, found your homepage, clicked the top link that took me to where I was

already, scrolled down, and found this:
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Sex/vagorgsm.txt

Sex is of cause important to commies too, else none would be left?
Thats is a joke Steve, no bad intent!
I want to thank you for making clear your position, or perhaps view of the
perfect society.
What comes back is some old history of an ideology put to practice in the
long ago past, was it not by Confucius?
Anyways it went bad, because some other country next door to his decided to
de-stabilize his system, and that was the end of it.
In an Utopia you see that often strong limitations are imposed on the real
nature of people, and there way to find 'other solutions'.
Even for this reason alone such a system as you describe would be unstable
by nature.
Maybe that is why the USSR fell, maybe why China is now adopting private
properties etc.. allowing industrials access to decision making in a system
that was 100% ruled by the workers only.
Your system is too rigid (in simple terms).
I see the good and fairness of it, but also it does not encourage anyone to
'venture where no one has gone before', something that GAVE us many of the
products we have today that are so useful to us.
No competition element.
An ideology is only as good as the ones believing in it I guess.
I respect your viewpoint, but sincerely I think it won't work.
Marx said 'I would never want to be part of a club that would have me as a
member'.
If *I* was part of your club I would start abusing it in every possible way I
could get away with immediately.
So that would not work for me.
If it does not work for me, then it is not universal and is doomed to fail.
Only ONE case is needed to disprove your theory.
Sending dissenters to Siberia or chopping their heads, does NOT solve the
fundamental problem that the suit does not fit all.
Especially when the dissenters are the intelligentsia, you cut your own
future.
Anyways....
JP

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (02 May 2004 04:06:24 GMT) it happened jdege@jdege.visi.com
(Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote in <slrnc98stv.8ap.jdege@jdege.visi.com>:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:24:03 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Maoist, Stalinist, Fascist, or Nazi.

Nobody gives much of a damn what particular flavor of tyranny you espouse.

It's that you espouse tyranny that matters.

--
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted
so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should
have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty, for liberty
is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.
- Frederic Bastiat
But then, people will start praying for law and order.

 

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Sun, 02 May 2004 14:47:13 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (02 May 2004 04:06:24 GMT) it happened jdege@jdege.visi.com
(Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote in <slrnc98stv.8ap.jdege@jdege.visi.com>:

Nobody gives much of a damn what particular flavor of tyranny you espouse.

It's that you espouse tyranny that matters.

--
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted
so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should
have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty, for liberty
is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.
- Frederic Bastiat

But then, people will start praying for law and order.

If it doesn't protect individuals' fundamental rights to life, liberty,
and property, it's not law.

And it won't be order, for very long, either.

--
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

 

[Chuck Harris]

R. Steve Walz wrote:
--------------------------

Equal right to own a home one inherits from our whole species,
making charging anyone rent or mortgage for their home an
executable offense.

How does this fit in with personal preferences? For instance, some
people want a tiny little home that is nothing more than an bed and
bath. They are only home for sleeping, and the rest of the time,
they are elsewhere. Others like large homes, perhaps because they
like to host gatherings of friends and relatives.

Surely a tiny home occupier should be compensated more in other areas
because of his frugality, than a large home occupier. How do you
do this if we all "inherit from our whole species"

Or do you propose that everyone gets a standardized cell, regardless
of their desires, or lifestyle?

Equal pay per hour for all workers, all pay for productive labor
ONLY. Banking, insurance, speculation, and profiteering off the
labor of others is an executable offense. Paper wealth is ended.

Anyone who doesn't work is barred from access to food till he
reports to be assigned work.

Goods are ordered by workers, the order produces authorization
for labor, and the labor hours to manufacture them, plus labor
hours which are the cost of the support of the disabled and
elderly, per item in the lot, is the price for the consumer item.

So, the dumb, but weak, are compensated the same for their feeble
attempts at labor as are the more productive smart and strong?
Or, do we starve the dumb, but weak, to death?

How does this encourage best efforts? (Note to Walz: threat of
pain does not buy loyalty or creativity. Consult the histories
of former slaves.)

Retirement, Education and Medical care and all Utilities such as
power, water, heat, telecom, television, and other such public
entitlements are guaranteed by the People to everyone who works.

Are the allotments all equal? If so, do we just kill off the
chronically ill?

Do folk that habitually use more power(water, heat...) just get
their power, or are we all allotted an amount, that we must use,
or lose? Some folks are cold when it is 80F, others are hot when
it is 60F... How do we accommodate these "preferences" ? If you
use more electricity, can you compensate by using less water?

All other property other than residential is owned by the People,
who control it by direct Local Democracy.

As landed gentry, that really puts me in my place! I worked
hard (in spite of what *you* think). I put my money into a large
chunk of land. I made do with old junker cars, cheap dwellings,
old clothes and old consumer appliances. I forwent entertainment.
and then when I had enough saved up, I built my own home... using
my muscle, saved money, and brains... It is a large, luxurious home.
But, I must have been stealing to make it happen. Simply because
others weren't willing to take the ambitious path I did. Yeah
right!

I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see with
our current version of capitalism.

-Chuck

 

[KR Williams]

In article <409490BE.7782@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <40944063.1BD3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40941D7A.3AE0@armory.com>:


To even understand my response, you need to know my situation:

I'm a confirmed, died-in-the wool Communist.

But do you have a picture of Lenin on the wall?
Or is it Mao?
----------------
Do you actually imagine this sort of comment makes you look bright?

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

I think we all understand that you're a communist (note the small
"c")

Mao wasn't, and Lenin didn't get to.

Neither Soviet Russia or Red China were communist.

...but they're fantastic examples of why communism cannot work.
-------------
Since those didn't implement any "communism", that's nothing but
a shitty little lie the Rich told the US people in the 1930's
when they were getting too Wobbly and scared them.

They sure thought they were trying to, which shows that communism
is perverse and will always be perverted. You're no different.

There is no such thing as altruism on a grand scale.
--------------
Nor is any such required, only obedience to the Law is required.

Now you're back to Mao and Stalin. You will obey or die! That's
"communism" as it will always be. It must be totalitarian or it
will die. There is no room for the individual in communism, which
makes it counter to the human species.

All law, now, and ever, is about fairness. The laws even now
are about fairness, just not nearly enough of it, because the
rich have distorted them.

"Fairness" as defined by RSW. Mao and Stalin knew everything
about "fairness" too. "Fair" is used to excuse all sorts of
mayhem.

We don't need to make anyone generous, we simply need to
severely punish anyone who has stolen from the rest of us!!!

Translation: I will kill everyone who disagrees with me or has
one more serving of rice than what's "fair". No thanks Steve, I
don't like your use of the word "fair" either.

A commune
*may* work with a hundred (thought even here there are more
failures than successes), but not with a hundred million.
Keith
---------------
No one needs a commune of any sort as a form of government. Communes
are families, not governments. The government is All the People.
When the People decide that wealth is crime, they will ban it!!

When pigs fly.

And there is absolutely zero reason to require altruism from anyone.
That is what majority power and guns and torture are for, both in
My Communism, and in every government that has ever existed.

Yes, steve, we've seen how well that works out, haven't we.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro. The people prospered, alright.
Each got their "fair" rewards.

Mine is merely the best possible one, and the one that will finally
succeed all others. And it will succeed not by persuading more than
a majority, the dissenting minority will simply be terrified to
disobey, as usual!

Yes, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Walz. Such a nice group
of "fair"-minded people.

--
Keith

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Chuck Harris" wrote
<snip>
: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see
with
: our current version of capitalism. -Chuck


There is NO viable form of communism! It is the dream of a utopia
with no responsibilities nor problems. Doesn't exist, and can't
exist! It flies in the face of Human Nature!

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:03:46 GMT, "Roger Gt" <not@here.net> wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes
"Chuck Harris" wrote
snip
: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see
with
: our current version of capitalism. -Chuck


There is NO viable form of communism! It is the dream of a utopia
with no responsibilities nor problems.

RSW would disagree. He wants to be responsible for the killing.

John

 

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:03:46 GMT, Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes
"Chuck Harris" wrote
snip
: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see
with
: our current version of capitalism. -Chuck

There is NO viable form of communism! It is the dream of a utopia
with no responsibilities nor problems. Doesn't exist, and can't
exist! It flies in the face of Human Nature!

It's not that it's an ideal that could never exist, it's that it's a
perverse ideal.

Even if it could work, it would be wholely evil.

Individuals exist for their own purposes, not as tools of the church,
the state, or any other abstraction.

It doesn't matter _which_ sort of end state you might envision, as the
outcome of people's individual activity. It's the fact that you _have_
an end state that is the root of the evil.

--
Many of those who profess the most individualistic objectives support
collectivist means without recognizing the contradiction. It is tempting
to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men
and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power,
all would be well. That view requires only emotion and self-praise -
easy to come by and satisfying as well. To understand why it is that
'good' men in positions of power will produce evil, while the ordinary
man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his
neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought. Surely that
is the answer to the perennial mystery of why collectivism, with its
demonstrated record of producing tyranny and misery, is so widely regarded
as superior to individualism, with its demonstrated record of producing
freedom and plenty. The argument for collectivism is simple if false;
it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism
is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.
And the emotional facilities are more highly developed in most men
than the rational, paradoxically or especially even in those who regard
themselves as intellectuals.
- Milton Friedman's introduction to F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
: "Roger Gt" wrote
: >"Chuck Harris" wrote
: ><snip>
: >: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I
see
: >: with our current version of capitalism. -Chuck
: >
: >There is NO viable form of communism! It is the dream of a
utopia
: >with no responsibilities nor problems.
: RSW would disagree. He wants to be responsible for the killing.
John

Perhaps his interest isn't the Communist government, it's the
killing! He's in a unique category.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 02 May 2004 05:51:54 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40948D3E.3A27@armory.com>:

How would you then define your version of communism?
--------------------------
Equal right to own a home one inherits from our whole species,
making charging anyone rent or mortgage for their home an
executable offense.

Equal pay per hour for all workers, all pay for productive labor
ONLY. Banking, insurance, speculation, and profiteering off the
labor of others is an executable offense. Paper wealth is ended.

Anyone who doesn't work is barred from access to food till he
reports to be assigned work.

Goods are ordered by workers, the order produces authorization
for labor, and the labor hours to manufacture them, plus labor
hours which are the cost of the support of the disabled and
elderly, per item in the lot, is the price for the consumer item.

Retirement, Education and Medical care and all Utilities such as
power, water, heat, telecom, television, and other such public
entitlements are guaranteed by the People to everyone who works.

All other property other than residential is owned by the People,
who control it by direct Local Democracy.


Now I am curious?
Because I can see no way to fit it in other remarks you made?
JP
--------------------------
Just GoogleNews Me and read for hours.
I don't need to type it all in again.

-Steve
I did, found your homepage, clicked the top link that took me to where I was
already, scrolled down, and found this:
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Sex/vagorgsm.txt

Sex is of cause important to commies too, else none would be left?
Thats is a joke Steve, no bad intent!
--------------------

That's an aid to folks like you, not a political position.

I want to thank you for making clear your position, or perhaps view of the
perfect society.
What comes back is some old history of an ideology put to practice in the
long ago past, was it not by Confucius?
Anyways it went bad, because some other country next door to his decided to
de-stabilize his system, and that was the end of it.
-----------------------

All that requires is the public will to drop the bomb, not much of
a challenge, nor much of a test of a government or a society.

In an Utopia you see that often strong limitations are imposed on the real
nature of people, and there way to find 'other solutions'.
--------------------------

That's nice, but I have no desire for "Utopia", merely a fairer
legal society, one which is simply much more frustrating to thieves.

Even for this reason alone such a system as you describe would be
unstable by nature.
-----------------------------

Lessee, and this is because of what, exactly? Posturers like you
seem to be good at alleging your propaganda, but you're singularly
unable to defend it by giving reasons that one can examine and/or
refute. You seem to be of the remarkable delusion that you're
ONLY stating something that is supposedly "obvious", when actually
it is merely something that you were brainwashed with by the
systematic rich ownership of the media and the US companies that
print the textbooks used in schools that you are unaware of, and
their effect on you during your youth. You were so made fun-of
by the adults prating these imaginary "facts" to you that you even
now find yourself unable to doubt them without shame, even though
they have never ever actually been proved to you or even argued
rationally!!!

You will find, if you try, that your posture here is not defensible
to anyone with a mind, especially me.

Maybe that is why the USSR fell, maybe why China is now adopting private
properties etc.. allowing industrials access to decision making in a system
that was 100% ruled by the workers only.
------------------

You really ARE a fool. The USSR was never "communist" by ANY of the
definitions taught to political science majors, it was an industrial
feudalism, EVEN MORE socially primtive than U.S. Capitalism, which
is a modern crypto-feudalism. It had LOTS AND LOTS of wealthy people
and their private property, and the "nobility" that ran it for their
collective and quite personal benefit was the Politiburo and its key
families and power groups!

And neither was China ever a People's Communism, it was simply CALLED
it by the powerful rich clique that took it over in the wake of the
revolution!

Both of these societies were abyssmally illiterate uneducated agrarian
feudalisms, and only remained moreso after both their supposed
"revolutions"!

In any REAL communism one would expect to see the absolute end of all
forms of concentrated wealth, and yet both societies had vast wealthy
classes made up of politician-nobilities!! These were NOT any such
thing as "communism"!! So give up EVER pretending they were!!!

What DID happen for the first time was the use of propagandistic lies
by the feudal nobility to try to convince the People that this was
the society that the communist revolutions produced, when it was a
situation in which the People were all equally impoverished because
the wealthy were systematically stealing it all and banking it off-
shore, and this has become obvious now in Russia. The Russian Mafia
under Vlad Putin have shown that they WERE the Politburo!!!

Russia and China were not even failures of communism, they were
merely frauds perpetrated by the powerful!!

Your system is too rigid (in simple terms).
-----------------------

All thieves think that systems of laws that protect most people
from their thievery are "too rigid".

You simply don't realize that profiteering by not working
productively is the same as thieving criminal scamming.
But it matches that pattern exactly!

You have been told for so long that stepping on other people's
faces is acceptible as long as you do it by the rules the rich
have set down to protecct their wealth. It ISN'T!!

I see the good and fairness of it, but also it does not encourage anyone to
'venture where no one has gone before', something that GAVE us many of the
products we have today that are so useful to us.
No competition element.
--------------------------

Your delusion is only the systematic lie that the researchers who
brought us our modern world would never have wanted to do science
if it hadn't been for the parasitic rich people who profiteered
from their work and give them virtually none of the vast resultant
wealth from it. The actual fact is that nerds and geeks do science
because they ARE nerds and geeks, and they would much rather do
that than dig ditches, and that they would just as easily do that
for ALL The People as they would for Just the Rich People for a
fair wage and the chance to do work in better conditions than to
dig ditches. Same with doctors.

An ideology is only as good as the ones believing in it I guess.
---------------------

Lame undefensible blather resembling the class deprecations of
the wealthy toward everyone else.

I respect your viewpoint, but sincerely I think it won't work.
----------------------

Not yet. By your reasoning then we should not have continued trying
to fly or build computers after ANY initial failures or frauds.

Marx said 'I would never want to be part of a club that would have me as a
member'.
-----------

Groucho said that, NOT Karl.

If *I* was part of your club I would start abusing it in every possible way I
could get away with immediately.
----------------

If you stopped working to the satisfaction of your neighbors and
co-workers who hold themselves to the same requirements, then you
would be starved to death until you changed your mind or died.

It is quite similar to what this society does to the homeless
who refuse to work and wish to beg and get drunk, it simply does
it quicker and doesn't tease them as to what society's intentions
are!

So that would not work for me.
--------------------

Drunken bums don't think it works for them now. Any sensible society
should make it illegal to give non-workers alcohol, and to enforce
that by the execution of any who do so.

If it does not work for me, then it is not universal and is doomed to fail.
------------------------

No, you mean you are doomed to death.

Only ONE case is needed to disprove your theory.
---------------------------

Nope, I expect thousands will die when my society comes to be.
Some by refusal to work, some by attempts to steal, some by efforts
to circumvent the requirement to benefit solely from one's own
labor, and not by connivance to speculate and scam.

Sending dissenters to Siberia or chopping their heads, does NOT solve the
fundamental problem that the suit does not fit all.
----------------------------

Society ONLY needs to fit the decent majority, not the criminals.

Especially when the dissenters are the intelligentsia, you cut your own
future.
Anyways....
JP
-------------------------

Lots of people THINK they're brighter than others and deserve more
wealth without working. They are actually thieves.

In any decent society ALL people like that are called criminals and
are eliminated, not just the inept ones.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 14:47:13 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (02 May 2004 04:06:24 GMT) it happened jdege@jdege.visi.com
(Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote in <slrnc98stv.8ap.jdege@jdege.visi.com>:

Nobody gives much of a damn what particular flavor of tyranny you espouse.

It's that you espouse tyranny that matters.

--
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted
so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should
have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty, for liberty
is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.
- Frederic Bastiat

But then, people will start praying for law and order.

If it doesn't protect individuals' fundamental rights to life, liberty,
and property, it's not law.

And it won't be order, for very long, either.
-----------------------------

You forget, or else you never really knew...:

The right of property has to meet the needs of the vast Majority for
EQUAL property, or it will fail!

And a right of liberty much exclude thefts of EVERY kind, that
means rich profiteering, speculating, and scamming wealth without
actually working for it, or else it will fail!!

And a right of life must include the inheritance of a residence so
that the rich will not be able to blackmail the poor into servitude
and monthly tribute to the rich, or else it will fail.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Chuck Harris wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
--------------------------
Equal right to own a home one inherits from our whole species,
making charging anyone rent or mortgage for their home an
executable offense.

How does this fit in with personal preferences? For instance, some
people want a tiny little home that is nothing more than an bed and
bath.
-----------

Name two. Much sour grapes by the disadvantaged is defense of one's
self-esteem, don't mistake it for political will. Settling-for is
not acquiescence.

They are only home for sleeping, and the rest of the time,
they are elsewhere.
-------------

You mean working too many hours while the rich vacation.

Others like large homes, perhaps because they
like to host gatherings of friends and relatives.
-----------------------------

All have the right to this, whether they use the right or not.
All have a right to a decently-sized residence, period, even
if it is empty and some wannbe-rich asshole does without.

Surely a tiny home occupier should be compensated more in other areas
because of his frugality, than a large home occupier. How do you
do this if we all "inherit from our whole species"
--------------------------------

The land is the land, it is not a product, it is the land, it is
to be divided equally, whether desired or not. Those who receive
it will think of a way to use it at their leisure, and it's none
of your fucking business.

Or do you propose that everyone gets a standardized cell, regardless
of their desires, or lifestyle?
-------------------------------

No, that would clearly be what YOU want for others now so that
you can "entertain" vast multitudes of others of your "class"
or something.

Equal pay per hour for all workers, all pay for productive labor
ONLY. Banking, insurance, speculation, and profiteering off the
labor of others is an executable offense. Paper wealth is ended.

Anyone who doesn't work is barred from access to food till he
reports to be assigned work.

Goods are ordered by workers, the order produces authorization
for labor, and the labor hours to manufacture them, plus labor
hours which are the cost of the support of the disabled and
elderly, per item in the lot, is the price for the consumer item.

So, the dumb, but weak, are compensated the same for their feeble
attempts at labor as are the more productive smart and strong?
Or, do we starve the dumb, but weak, to death?
---------------------------------

Nope, we pay everyone we need equally. If someone does work we would
have to do without them, then they deserve the same as we get.

How does this encourage best efforts? (Note to Walz: threat of
pain does not buy loyalty or creativity. Consult the histories
of former slaves.)
--------------------------------

Nor does it need to. Threat of being relegated to unpleasant work,
however, does so admirably, just as it encourages millions to go
to college to avoid it even now in this society!!

And the threat of starvation makes people report to work just as
it does for hundreds of millions even now in this society!!

Pretending it does not NOW, opens the mighty doors of welfare
freebie-ism!!

Retirement, Education and Medical care and all Utilities such as
power, water, heat, telecom, television, and other such public
entitlements are guaranteed by the People to everyone who works.

Are the allotments all equal?
----------------------------

People at large have an allotment, people who need more get more
because the State recognizes their status as disabled with special
needs.

If so, do we just kill off the
chronically ill?
-----------------------

Nope, we want the same care if we become invalids, so we have to
vote to deliver it to them. Same reason social security is so
popular now.

Do folk that habitually use more power(water, heat...) just get
their power, or are we all allotted an amount, that we must use,
or lose? Some folks are cold when it is 80F, others are hot when
it is 60F... How do we accommodate these "preferences" ? If you
use more electricity, can you compensate by using less water?
-------------------------------

We allot the power, and the meter tells you how much you used so
far this month and indicates what it can and later must do for you
to prevent overconsumption. Approved special needs people exempted.

All other property other than residential is owned by the People,
who control it by direct Local Democracy.

As landed gentry, that really puts me in my place! I worked
hard (in spite of what *you* think). I put my money into a large
chunk of land. I made do with old junker cars, cheap dwellings,
old clothes and old consumer appliances. I forwent entertainment.
and then when I had enough saved up, I built my own home... using
my muscle, saved money, and brains... It is a large, luxurious home.
But, I must have been stealing to make it happen. Simply because
others weren't willing to take the ambitious path I did. Yeah
right!
-----------------------------------

I doubt it.
If you can convince your friends and neighbors that they should allot
to themselves more land for their mansion, or compound, then you can
keep yours. Or if you can convince them that you were paid fairly for
fair labor and merely saved it, you can obtain a waiver. But you need to
ask. Good luck. Many people will want what to do what you
have done, so actually approval for it will probably be quite easy,
if you share ownership with enough others in your group.

I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see with
our current version of capitalism.
-Chuck
---------------------------------

You're just being paranoid and selective. From your desciption of
your home I imagine everyone wants the right to do the same, and
I bet that will be the most common form of desire for a home-place,
and that in My Society nearly everyone will want to live in that
sort of manner, building their own compound on a chunk of land and
saving and scrounging for materials and fixtures to build it. But in
the meantime till they have time to build, they have to be free of
rent to live in their current apartment or what-not, and for now
their affirmed right to a chunk of land with their name on it will
have to suffice. But after a half-century of My Society, I can
easily imagine that people will be living on parcels and in groups.
There will likely be everything from sprawling compounds of solar-
heated homes to earthen and rock pyramids made of the suites of
dozens of people who have chosen a more tribal form of small-town
living and working together as an industrial collective.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Roger Gt wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes
"Chuck Harris" wrote
snip
: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see
with
: our current version of capitalism. -Chuck

There is NO viable form of communism!
-------------------

You have no proof of that, in fact a hundred thousand years of
tribal human existence makes you A LIAR!!

It is the dream of a utopia with no responsibilities nor problems.
-----------------

No it isn't, you have to work or starve, you can't get rich from
scamming, sounds like it is quite equally hard for everyone, instead
of just most of the people!!

Doesn't exist, and can't exist!
------------------

You've gone MANIC! Why are you so excited, are you frightened?
You sound like you're jumping up and down screaming:
"My life is not a lie, my life is not a lie!!
Is this a major crisis of confidence for you? Is it? Good!!

It flies in the face of Human Nature!
--------------------

Nonsense, we're a group-being, without our social connections and
language we aren't even human, feral children not raised by humans
or kids raised in closets don't even learn to think and they die in
puberty!!

Our Nature is what it always was, to gain our power as a group
against the ravages of nature, since we are individually not very
formidable. We are not strong or fast or sharp of tooth, nor can
we care for ourselves if injured, nor feed as a child or an elder
as other animals can. We have lived in tribes and shared everything
since we were nothing but "chimps"! We EVOLVED to that life! Our
ability came from the group power, 30 people with sharp sticks
and rocks can drive off any animal!! All we had to do to take power
over this planet was stick together faithfully, it is our greatest
single coup over the dangers of the forest and plain! Still is!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:03:46 GMT, "Roger Gt" <not@here.net> wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes
"Chuck Harris" wrote
snip
: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see
with
: our current version of capitalism. -Chuck


There is NO viable form of communism! It is the dream of a utopia
with no responsibilities nor problems.

RSW would disagree. He wants to be responsible for the killing.

John
-------------

Actually I hope that the thieving assholes will all be frightened
and go do their work and shut the fuck up, and that they would
then later realize they had been quite wrong. However, that's too
much to hope, I imagine. If they remain criminals, the I would
indeed help kill them.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:03:46 GMT, Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote
snip
: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I see
with
: our current version of capitalism. -Chuck

There is NO viable form of communism! It is the dream of a utopia
with no responsibilities nor problems. Doesn't exist, and can't
exist! It flies in the face of Human Nature!

It's not that it's an ideal that could never exist, it's that it's a
perverse ideal.
------------------

Fairness perverse?
Nope, YOU'RE perverse if you can twist things like that in your mind.

Even if it could work, it would be wholely evil.
-------------------

Ridiculous indefensible blather!

Individuals exist for their own purposes, not as tools of the church,
the state, or any other abstraction.
---------------------

Sure. But they cannot be allowed to steal. This was recognized long
ago. The thing is, the proper definition of stealing is simply not
complete, not sufficiently developed. I propose it be finished.

It doesn't matter _which_ sort of end state you might envision, as the
outcome of people's individual activity. It's the fact that you _have_
an end state that is the root of the evil.
-------------------------

The People organizing into a State is merely to ban crime. There will
always be thieves and criminals we have to stop.

Many of those who profess the most individualistic objectives support
collectivist means without recognizing the contradiction.
------------------------

Nonsense, we are "collectivist" when we form governments, organize
the military, the post office, local hospitals, build roads and
highways, and defend our laws!

It is tempting
to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men
and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power,
all would be well.
-----------------------

All social ills can be traced to unfairness, and all unfairness to
acts which must in the future be understood to be crimes. You can't
trace them to anything else without lying about human nature. All
the criminology texts of the last century and a half hold this as
Truth!

That view requires only emotion and self-praise -
easy to come by and satisfying as well. To understand why it is that
'good' men in positions of power will produce evil, while the ordinary
man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his
neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought.
------------------------------

Nonsense, nobody believes that, nor does anyone on the Left!
Can you say STRAWMAN!!!??? I thought you could!

Surely that
is the answer to the perennial mystery of why collectivism, with its
demonstrated record of producing tyranny and misery,
-------------------------------

Nope, Russia and China were NEVER "communisms", they were industrial
agrarian feudalisms, run BY the rich FOR the rich.

No True Communism has EVER BEEN TRIED in mass-scale techno-society.

is so widely regarded
as superior to individualism, with its demonstrated record of producing
freedom and plenty.
-------------------------------

Unfreedom for most and plenty for the rich, he means, what a liar!
Of course he's rich and only knows other rich, so this isn't really
surprising.

The argument for collectivism is simple if false;
it is an immediate emotional argument.
--------------

An assertion which he cannot defend, obviously, so he doesn't.
Ignorantly facile.

The argument for individualism
is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.
----------------

He pretends that thievery isn't powered by emotional assertions of
superior worth to everyone else that are indefensible.

And the emotional facilities are more highly developed in most men
than the rational, paradoxically or especially even in those who regard
themselves as intellectuals.
- Milton Friedman's introduction to F. A. Hayek's "The Road to > Serfdom"
--------------------

I think he just said that individualism was irrational and emotional,
and that collectivism was rational but "too good foryou lot"!! ;->

You actually quote the guy who is most widely recognized as an
inept posturing right-wing asshole??

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <409490BE.7782@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40944063.1BD3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40941D7A.3AE0@armory.com>:


To even understand my response, you need to know my situation:

I'm a confirmed, died-in-the wool Communist.

But do you have a picture of Lenin on the wall?
Or is it Mao?
----------------
Do you actually imagine this sort of comment makes you look bright?

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

I think we all understand that you're a communist (note the small
"c")

Mao wasn't, and Lenin didn't get to.

Neither Soviet Russia or Red China were communist.

...but they're fantastic examples of why communism cannot work.
-------------
Since those didn't implement any "communism", that's nothing but
a shitty little lie the Rich told the US people in the 1930's
when they were getting too Wobbly and scared them.

They sure thought they were trying to, which shows that communism
is perverse and will always be perverted. You're no different.

There is no such thing as altruism on a grand scale.
--------------
Nor is any such required, only obedience to the Law is required.

Now you're back to Mao and Stalin. You will obey or die! That's
"communism" as it will always be.
-------------------

Nonsense, that's as much Genghis Khan and Machiavelli, it has no
political persuasion, it is simply what all governments must do,
unflichingly enforce their laws.

It must be totalitarian or it will die.
---------------------

There's no such thing as "totalitarian", total control being
impossible and solely in the eye of the beholder. Criminals
always call the govt totalitarian. It's a meaningless non-label
that simply means that somebody doesn't like a law or system.

There is no room for the individual in communism, which
makes it counter to the human species.
------------------------

That's the lie you were taught alright, congrats, you have
successfully regurgitated your programming. You can sit down
now.

If by the "individual" you mean thievery, then sure, it is
illegal, but it's very nearly JUST *AS* illegal here now anyway
as it would be in My System!! The only changes I propose are
those which further newly define more unfairnesses as theft
and fraud. We're constantly defining ever more such things in
that direction anyway, so I'm going in the same direction society
has been going for 500 years!!

All law, now, and ever, is about fairness. The laws even now
are about fairness, just not nearly enough of it, because the
rich have distorted them.

"Fairness" as defined by RSW. Mao and Stalin knew everything
about "fairness" too. "Fair" is used to excuse all sorts of
mayhem.
-----------------------------------

You leave out the FACT that it is used to justify absolutely
EVERYTHING, even when it is a lie. However, that doesn't
devalue the Just uses of it to justify enforcing laws that
protect us.

We don't need to make anyone generous, we simply need to
severely punish anyone who has stolen from the rest of us!!!

Translation: I will kill everyone who disagrees with me or has
one more serving of rice than what's "fair". No thanks Steve, I
don't like your use of the word "fair" either.
------------------------------

No. That was only your MIS-translation.
*MY* point was that NO government bothers to get the approval of
criminals before making laws against their thievery, and that
the actions of the Majrity are justified BECAUSE they are the
Majority!

A commune
*may* work with a hundred (thought even here there are more
failures than successes), but not with a hundred million.
Keith
---------------
No one needs a commune of any sort as a form of government. Communes
are families, not governments. The government is All the People.
When the People decide that wealth is crime, they will ban it!!

When pigs fly.
-----------------

Now you're being ridiculous just because you ran out of ideas.

And there is absolutely zero reason to require altruism from anyone.
That is what majority power and guns and torture are for, both in
My Communism, and in every government that has ever existed.

Yes, steve, we've seen how well that works out, haven't we.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro. The people prospered, alright.
Each got their "fair" rewards.
-----------------------------------

That's selectively disingenuous.
ALSO TRUE in every government that has ever existed.

Our laws in the USA are NOT defended by requiring altrism, so neither
would they be in MY Society! In the end it is guns that defend laws,
because laws are at the point where no one wants to hear your shit
anymore, just to stop your criminality!!

Mine is merely the best possible one, and the one that will finally
succeed all others. And it will succeed not by persuading more than
a majority, the dissenting minority will simply be terrified to
disobey, as usual!

Yes, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Walz. Such a nice group
of "fair"-minded people.
Keith
-------------------

AND the founding fathers, and the Congress, and all modern govts!

More of your selective disingenuity. Can you possibly argue any
more pitifully or dishonestly??? I think NOT!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 02 May 2004 22:07:24 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409571E0.3342@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 02 May 2004 05:51:54 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40948D3E.3A27@armory.com>:

How would you then define your version of communism?
--------------------------
Equal right to own a home one inherits from our whole species,
making charging anyone rent or mortgage for their home an
executable offense.

Equal pay per hour for all workers, all pay for productive labor
ONLY. Banking, insurance, speculation, and profiteering off the
labor of others is an executable offense. Paper wealth is ended.

Anyone who doesn't work is barred from access to food till he
reports to be assigned work.

Goods are ordered by workers, the order produces authorization
for labor, and the labor hours to manufacture them, plus labor
hours which are the cost of the support of the disabled and
elderly, per item in the lot, is the price for the consumer item.

Retirement, Education and Medical care and all Utilities such as
power, water, heat, telecom, television, and other such public
entitlements are guaranteed by the People to everyone who works.

All other property other than residential is owned by the People,
who control it by direct Local Democracy.


Now I am curious?
Because I can see no way to fit it in other remarks you made?
JP
--------------------------
Just GoogleNews Me and read for hours.
I don't need to type it all in again.

-Steve
I did, found your homepage, clicked the top link that took me to where I was
already, scrolled down, and found this:
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Sex/vagorgsm.txt

Sex is of cause important to commies too, else none would be left?
Thats is a joke Steve, no bad intent!
--------------------
That's an aid to folks like you, not a political position.


I want to thank you for making clear your position, or perhaps view of the
perfect society.
What comes back is some old history of an ideology put to practice in the
long ago past, was it not by Confucius?
Anyways it went bad, because some other country next door to his decided to
de-stabilize his system, and that was the end of it.
-----------------------
All that requires is the public will to drop the bomb, not much of
a challenge, nor much of a test of a government or a society.


In an Utopia you see that often strong limitations are imposed on the real
nature of people, and there way to find 'other solutions'.
--------------------------
That's nice, but I have no desire for "Utopia", merely a fairer
legal society, one which is simply much more frustrating to thieves.


Even for this reason alone such a system as you describe would be
unstable by nature.
-----------------------------
Lessee, and this is because of what, exactly? Posturers like you
seem to be good at alleging your propaganda, but you're singularly
unable to defend it by giving reasons that one can examine and/or
refute. You seem to be of the remarkable delusion that you're
ONLY stating something that is supposedly "obvious", when actually
it is merely something that you were brainwashed with by the
systematic rich ownership of the media and the US companies that
print the textbooks used in schools that you are unaware of, and
their effect on you during your youth. You were so made fun-of
by the adults prating these imaginary "facts" to you that you even
now find yourself unable to doubt them without shame, even though
they have never ever actually been proved to you or even argued
rationally!!!

You will find, if you try, that your posture here is not defensible
to anyone with a mind, especially me.


Maybe that is why the USSR fell, maybe why China is now adopting private
properties etc.. allowing industrials access to decision making in a system
that was 100% ruled by the workers only.
------------------
You really ARE a fool. The USSR was never "communist" by ANY of the
definitions taught to political science majors, it was an industrial
feudalism, EVEN MORE socially primtive than U.S. Capitalism, which
is a modern crypto-feudalism. It had LOTS AND LOTS of wealthy people
and their private property, and the "nobility" that ran it for their
collective and quite personal benefit was the Politiburo and its key
families and power groups!

And neither was China ever a People's Communism, it was simply CALLED
it by the powerful rich clique that took it over in the wake of the
revolution!

Both of these societies were abyssmally illiterate uneducated agrarian
feudalisms, and only remained moreso after both their supposed
"revolutions"!

In any REAL communism one would expect to see the absolute end of all
forms of concentrated wealth, and yet both societies had vast wealthy
classes made up of politician-nobilities!! These were NOT any such
thing as "communism"!! So give up EVER pretending they were!!!

What DID happen for the first time was the use of propagandistic lies
by the feudal nobility to try to convince the People that this was
the society that the communist revolutions produced, when it was a
situation in which the People were all equally impoverished because
the wealthy were systematically stealing it all and banking it off-
shore, and this has become obvious now in Russia. The Russian Mafia
under Vlad Putin have shown that they WERE the Politburo!!!

Russia and China were not even failures of communism, they were
merely frauds perpetrated by the powerful!!


Your system is too rigid (in simple terms).
-----------------------
All thieves think that systems of laws that protect most people
from their thievery are "too rigid".

You simply don't realize that profiteering by not working
productively is the same as thieving criminal scamming.
But it matches that pattern exactly!

You have been told for so long that stepping on other people's
faces is acceptible as long as you do it by the rules the rich
have set down to protecct their wealth. It ISN'T!!


I see the good and fairness of it, but also it does not encourage anyone to
'venture where no one has gone before', something that GAVE us many of the
products we have today that are so useful to us.
No competition element.
--------------------------
Your delusion is only the systematic lie that the researchers who
brought us our modern world would never have wanted to do science
if it hadn't been for the parasitic rich people who profiteered
from their work and give them virtually none of the vast resultant
wealth from it. The actual fact is that nerds and geeks do science
because they ARE nerds and geeks, and they would much rather do
that than dig ditches, and that they would just as easily do that
for ALL The People as they would for Just the Rich People for a
fair wage and the chance to do work in better conditions than to
dig ditches. Same with doctors.


An ideology is only as good as the ones believing in it I guess.
---------------------
Lame undefensible blather resembling the class deprecations of
the wealthy toward everyone else.


I respect your viewpoint, but sincerely I think it won't work.
----------------------
Not yet. By your reasoning then we should not have continued trying
to fly or build computers after ANY initial failures or frauds.


Marx said 'I would never want to be part of a club that would have me as a
member'.
-----------
Groucho said that, NOT Karl.


If *I* was part of your club I would start abusing it in every possible way I
could get away with immediately.
----------------
If you stopped working to the satisfaction of your neighbors and
co-workers who hold themselves to the same requirements, then you
would be starved to death until you changed your mind or died.

It is quite similar to what this society does to the homeless
who refuse to work and wish to beg and get drunk, it simply does
it quicker and doesn't tease them as to what society's intentions
are!


So that would not work for me.
--------------------
Drunken bums don't think it works for them now. Any sensible society
should make it illegal to give non-workers alcohol, and to enforce
that by the execution of any who do so.


If it does not work for me, then it is not universal and is doomed to fail.
------------------------
No, you mean you are doomed to death.


Only ONE case is needed to disprove your theory.
---------------------------
Nope, I expect thousands will die when my society comes to be.
Some by refusal to work, some by attempts to steal, some by efforts
to circumvent the requirement to benefit solely from one's own
labor, and not by connivance to speculate and scam.


Sending dissenters to Siberia or chopping their heads, does NOT solve the
fundamental problem that the suit does not fit all.
----------------------------
Society ONLY needs to fit the decent majority, not the criminals.


Especially when the dissenters are the intelligentsia, you cut your own
future.
Anyways....
JP
-------------------------
Lots of people THINK they're brighter than others and deserve more
wealth without working. They are actually thieves.

In any decent society ALL people like that are called criminals and
are eliminated, not just the inept ones.

-Steve
Steve, I could go through this line by line, but I do not feel like it.

You may be right about Groucho, I never felt the inspiration to read
more then a few lines Marx.
Still I think that was a cool quote.
As to my 'indoctrination in youth', well you could not be more wrong, but
I will not play along.
For the rest I only see a lot of rhetoric really.
Why want to kill anyone who does not agree with the little system you
envision?
Think for a moment, WHAT is the purpose of life (universally)?
In MY view, it is to spend the (little perhaps) time we have on this earth
as happy as possible.
This is your efficiency.
happy days / days lived.
And with happiness I mean some inner experience, not how much money you have
in the bank, what you experience NOW, this moment.
The only moment ever given to you, right now, tick tick tick, each breath
and heart beat.
Lighter and brighter is an internal experience, you your brain, the way it
experiences, is internal to you.
Get that right and you are in the kingdom of heaven now.
No need for a religion with some promise after death.
Now given this simple fact, and the fact anybody can experience this, even
the ones who do not follow your system, criminals, rich, poor, good, bad,
old, young, communist, capitalist, Muslim.... Christians too, and it is such
a precious thing, why on earth want to replace reality with some system?
Why want to kill (take away the chance to have that experience) from anyone
for any reason?
Ideology has not brought anyone happiness, especially not the one you are
proposing.
That would be like a prison, make one false move, out you are.
This could come forward from you not experiencing that essence I am talking
about.
Why not, focus on the inner self, and understand it, before taking on huge
modifications of culture and systems that have grown over a long time, sort
of like evolution happened.
Your sound almost like saying: 'Hey dogs would be better with 5 legs...'
Focus on your inner self, and then appreciate that what can happen in others
too.
Now is a good moment to start.
Once you see the truth inside, you will start to see the common thing in all
religions too, in essence the Prophet Mohammed, was saying the same thing as
Jesus, same as Buddha, same as so many.. Krishna, look for the common, not
the differences.
Only by looking for the common factor can we humans live in a global
community in peace.
Strong punishment for anyone who does not follow 'the system' only creates
an opposite force of equal strength I think.
Review your position, it is far too hard (sharp edges) to be liked by anyone.
Improve the world, but improve it by being true to THAT part in yourself that
is common and most longed for by ALL living creatures.
Here is where sainthood begins.
And that can only bring good.
Your system is one of ignorance and brings no hope for even a smile.
Have fun
JP

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Roger Gt wrote:

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
: "Roger Gt" wrote
: >"Chuck Harris" wrote
: ><snip
: >: I see more problems with your version of communism, than I
see
: >: with our current version of capitalism. -Chuck
:
: >There is NO viable form of communism! It is the dream of a
utopia
: >with no responsibilities nor problems.
: RSW would disagree. He wants to be responsible for the killing.
John

Perhaps his interest isn't the Communist government, it's the
killing! He's in a unique category.
------------

Nope.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 02 May 2004 22:07:24 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409571E0.3342@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 02 May 2004 05:51:54 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40948D3E.3A27@armory.com>:

How would you then define your version of communism?
--------------------------
Equal right to own a home one inherits from our whole species,
making charging anyone rent or mortgage for their home an
executable offense.

Equal pay per hour for all workers, all pay for productive labor
ONLY. Banking, insurance, speculation, and profiteering off the
labor of others is an executable offense. Paper wealth is ended.

Anyone who doesn't work is barred from access to food till he
reports to be assigned work.

Goods are ordered by workers, the order produces authorization
for labor, and the labor hours to manufacture them, plus labor
hours which are the cost of the support of the disabled and
elderly, per item in the lot, is the price for the consumer item.

Retirement, Education and Medical care and all Utilities such as
power, water, heat, telecom, television, and other such public
entitlements are guaranteed by the People to everyone who works.

All other property other than residential is owned by the People,
who control it by direct Local Democracy.


Now I am curious?
Because I can see no way to fit it in other remarks you made?
JP
--------------------------
Just GoogleNews Me and read for hours.
I don't need to type it all in again.

-Steve
I did, found your homepage, clicked the top link that took me to where I was
already, scrolled down, and found this:
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Sex/vagorgsm.txt

Sex is of cause important to commies too, else none would be left?
Thats is a joke Steve, no bad intent!
--------------------
That's an aid to folks like you, not a political position.


I want to thank you for making clear your position, or perhaps view of the
perfect society.
What comes back is some old history of an ideology put to practice in the
long ago past, was it not by Confucius?
Anyways it went bad, because some other country next door to his decided to
de-stabilize his system, and that was the end of it.
-----------------------
All that requires is the public will to drop the bomb, not much of
a challenge, nor much of a test of a government or a society.


In an Utopia you see that often strong limitations are imposed on the real
nature of people, and there way to find 'other solutions'.
--------------------------
That's nice, but I have no desire for "Utopia", merely a fairer
legal society, one which is simply much more frustrating to thieves.


Even for this reason alone such a system as you describe would be
unstable by nature.
-----------------------------
Lessee, and this is because of what, exactly? Posturers like you
seem to be good at alleging your propaganda, but you're singularly
unable to defend it by giving reasons that one can examine and/or
refute. You seem to be of the remarkable delusion that you're
ONLY stating something that is supposedly "obvious", when actually
it is merely something that you were brainwashed with by the
systematic rich ownership of the media and the US companies that
print the textbooks used in schools that you are unaware of, and
their effect on you during your youth. You were so made fun-of
by the adults prating these imaginary "facts" to you that you even
now find yourself unable to doubt them without shame, even though
they have never ever actually been proved to you or even argued
rationally!!!

You will find, if you try, that your posture here is not defensible
to anyone with a mind, especially me.


Maybe that is why the USSR fell, maybe why China is now adopting private
properties etc.. allowing industrials access to decision making in a system
that was 100% ruled by the workers only.
------------------
You really ARE a fool. The USSR was never "communist" by ANY of the
definitions taught to political science majors, it was an industrial
feudalism, EVEN MORE socially primtive than U.S. Capitalism, which
is a modern crypto-feudalism. It had LOTS AND LOTS of wealthy people
and their private property, and the "nobility" that ran it for their
collective and quite personal benefit was the Politiburo and its key
families and power groups!

And neither was China ever a People's Communism, it was simply CALLED
it by the powerful rich clique that took it over in the wake of the
revolution!

Both of these societies were abyssmally illiterate uneducated agrarian
feudalisms, and only remained moreso after both their supposed
"revolutions"!

In any REAL communism one would expect to see the absolute end of all
forms of concentrated wealth, and yet both societies had vast wealthy
classes made up of politician-nobilities!! These were NOT any such
thing as "communism"!! So give up EVER pretending they were!!!

What DID happen for the first time was the use of propagandistic lies
by the feudal nobility to try to convince the People that this was
the society that the communist revolutions produced, when it was a
situation in which the People were all equally impoverished because
the wealthy were systematically stealing it all and banking it off-
shore, and this has become obvious now in Russia. The Russian Mafia
under Vlad Putin have shown that they WERE the Politburo!!!

Russia and China were not even failures of communism, they were
merely frauds perpetrated by the powerful!!


Your system is too rigid (in simple terms).
-----------------------
All thieves think that systems of laws that protect most people
from their thievery are "too rigid".

You simply don't realize that profiteering by not working
productively is the same as thieving criminal scamming.
But it matches that pattern exactly!

You have been told for so long that stepping on other people's
faces is acceptible as long as you do it by the rules the rich
have set down to protecct their wealth. It ISN'T!!


I see the good and fairness of it, but also it does not encourage anyone to
'venture where no one has gone before', something that GAVE us many of the
products we have today that are so useful to us.
No competition element.
--------------------------
Your delusion is only the systematic lie that the researchers who
brought us our modern world would never have wanted to do science
if it hadn't been for the parasitic rich people who profiteered
from their work and give them virtually none of the vast resultant
wealth from it. The actual fact is that nerds and geeks do science
because they ARE nerds and geeks, and they would much rather do
that than dig ditches, and that they would just as easily do that
for ALL The People as they would for Just the Rich People for a
fair wage and the chance to do work in better conditions than to
dig ditches. Same with doctors.


An ideology is only as good as the ones believing in it I guess.
---------------------
Lame undefensible blather resembling the class deprecations of
the wealthy toward everyone else.


I respect your viewpoint, but sincerely I think it won't work.
----------------------
Not yet. By your reasoning then we should not have continued trying
to fly or build computers after ANY initial failures or frauds.


Marx said 'I would never want to be part of a club that would have me as a
member'.
-----------
Groucho said that, NOT Karl.


If *I* was part of your club I would start abusing it in every possible way I
could get away with immediately.
----------------
If you stopped working to the satisfaction of your neighbors and
co-workers who hold themselves to the same requirements, then you
would be starved to death until you changed your mind or died.

It is quite similar to what this society does to the homeless
who refuse to work and wish to beg and get drunk, it simply does
it quicker and doesn't tease them as to what society's intentions
are!


So that would not work for me.
--------------------
Drunken bums don't think it works for them now. Any sensible society
should make it illegal to give non-workers alcohol, and to enforce
that by the execution of any who do so.


If it does not work for me, then it is not universal and is doomed to fail.
------------------------
No, you mean you are doomed to death.


Only ONE case is needed to disprove your theory.
---------------------------
Nope, I expect thousands will die when my society comes to be.
Some by refusal to work, some by attempts to steal, some by efforts
to circumvent the requirement to benefit solely from one's own
labor, and not by connivance to speculate and scam.


Sending dissenters to Siberia or chopping their heads, does NOT solve the
fundamental problem that the suit does not fit all.
----------------------------
Society ONLY needs to fit the decent majority, not the criminals.


Especially when the dissenters are the intelligentsia, you cut your own
future.
Anyways....
JP
-------------------------
Lots of people THINK they're brighter than others and deserve more
wealth without working. They are actually thieves.

In any decent society ALL people like that are called criminals and
are eliminated, not just the inept ones.

-Steve

Steve, I could go through this line by line, but I do not feel like it.
You may be right about Groucho, I never felt the inspiration to read
more then a few lines Marx.
Still I think that was a cool quote.
As to my 'indoctrination in youth', well you could not be more wrong, but
I will not play along.
For the rest I only see a lot of rhetoric really.
Why want to kill anyone who does not agree with the little system you
envision?
---------------------

I don't, unless they wish to engage in criminality.

But I know anyone who opposes it is against fairness for all and
will almost assuredly become a criminal thief/saboteur.

Think for a moment, WHAT is the purpose of life (universally)?
In MY view, it is to spend the (little perhaps) time we have on this earth
as happy as possible.
------------------------

And, paradoxically that leads some to be criminal and others to have
to kill or control them. Controlling someone being boring, they have
the right to simply eliminate them.

This is your efficiency. happy days / days lived.
---------------------------

Overly simplistic.

And with happiness I mean some inner experience, not how much money you have
in the bank, what you experience NOW, this moment.
The only moment ever given to you, right now, tick tick tick, each breath
and heart beat.
Lighter and brighter is an internal experience, you your brain, the way it
experiences, is internal to you.
Get that right and you are in the kingdom of heaven now.
No need for a religion with some promise after death.
Now given this simple fact, and the fact anybody can experience this, even
the ones who do not follow your system, criminals, rich, poor, good, bad,
old, young, communist, capitalist, Muslim.... Christians too, and it is such
a precious thing, why on earth want to replace reality with some system?
--------------------

I agree with you, except NO one is replacing anything, but you leave
out a lot that can happen to a person to ruin their whole day due to
the viciousness of others.

Why want to kill (take away the chance to have that experience) from anyone
for any reason?
-----------------------

To stop them trying to screw up yours, and if you don't think they
can and do you aren't paying very good attention and you need LESS
drugs rather than more.

Ideology has not brought anyone happiness, especially not the one you are
proposing.
-------------------

That isn't its job, and Fairness isn't some "ideology".

That would be like a prison, make one false move, out you are.
---------------------

Nope, you'd have to quite intently work to fuck up someone else's
good time by violating laws in a society that has made it almost
impossible for you to even do so.

This could come forward from you not experiencing that essence I am talking
about.
-------------------

Don't posture, it's embarrasing.

Why not, focus on the inner self, and understand it, before taking on huge
modifications of culture and systems that have grown over a long time, sort
of like evolution happened.
-------------------

Sort of like Hunduism, accept your fate, your lot in life as a poor
slave, your servitude and enslavement. Sounds medieval. Sounds like
disingenuous propaganda by the Rich.

Your sound almost like saying: 'Hey dogs would be better with 5 legs...'
--------------------------

Nope, but if all the dogs you had ever seen had three and fell a lot
you might think that four was too many and call it five by mistake.

Focus on your inner self, and then appreciate that what can happen in others
too.
Now is a good moment to start.
Once you see the truth inside, you will start to see the common thing in all
religions too, in essence the Prophet Mohammed, was saying the same thing as
Jesus, same as Buddha, same as so many..
---------------

Boy are YOU a fucking delusional! Ever READ the Quran? I did in 2001
after 9/11!!! He wasn't that bright!!

Krishna, look for the common, not the differences.
-----------------

Silliness.

Only by looking for the common factor can we humans live in a global
community in peace.
--------------------

If you think so you're going to wind up converted by the sword
and enslaved. Hope you like it.

Strong punishment for anyone who does not follow 'the system' only creates
an opposite force of equal strength I think.
------------------------

Nonsense, never has before. Laws are enforced, as they must be.
And it works.

The opposition principle you pretend to present here only works with
Xtian/Islamic "phony evil", whose oppression DESERVES to be opposed.

With real evil it works fine, however, because deep inside people
know when they're criminally wrong as a part of our nature, and
they knuckle under to sufficient control by others.

Keeping criminals in jail till they die is sufficient, but overly
expensive. Killing them is only a waste if they can't be medically,
chemically or electrically hobbled and enslaved benignly.

Review your position, it is far too hard (sharp edges) to be
liked by anyone.
--------------------------

I like to say the Truth without abrading its edges.

And those who don't like it have their guilt for their crimes
chiding them.

If you knew the people you deprive with your execessive criminal
wage and investment profit and rental properties, you would know
you were wrong much more surely, and you would feel proper guilt
and shame!!!

Improve the world, but improve it by being true to THAT part in yourself that
is common and most longed for by ALL living creatures.
--------------------

Most of that would be RESCUE of the weak, and My System does that.

Here is where sainthood begins.
---------------------

No sainthood is required, desired by me, nor is it possible or
even necessary. Religion is delusion. The only true faith is
the faith in the Enforced Humane Future.

And that can only bring good.
Your system is one of ignorance and brings no hope for even a smile.
Have fun
JP
-----------------------------

Nonsense.
My System assails only inequitable criminals, cruel and vicious.

The people who are no longer enslaved to pay monthly tribute
to the rich and no longer have less than half their actual
purchasing power will smile!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public