The Liberal Gun Club Forum

amrev360 wrote:more

I can taste the teargas. wow!

Takes me back to my college days after I got out of the army in1969. Washington D.C. and the tear gas waffting throgh the Union

Fukshot wrote:I almost forgot that I could post this.

Is that a microphone? Or.... some kind of sex toy?

The slogan works well either way.

larrymod wrote:

Fukshot wrote:I almost forgot that I could post this.

Is that a microphone? Or.... some kind of sex toy?

The slogan works well either way.

That is the Hitachi Magic Wand, the Cadillac/Browning M2 of vibrators. It's the header from my blog.

Here's a few more

here

more

Stole this off of progurts facebook.

...

...

amrev360 wrote:

Here's the problem with this. I most socialist nations, the worker still gets the shit, in most, even less money, and instead of a business owner taking the profits, the state takes the profits and then spends it recklessly in most cases, and not too bad in some rare cases. Socialism is a luxury that can be had after capitalism build a society.

What socialist nations?

I still have a plan at the back of my mind to go after my potential Norwegian citizenship.

In 1952 my mom and her family came to America.

In 2022 we might just go back.

FrontSight wrote: Here's the problem with this. I most socialist nations, the worker still gets the shit, in most, even less money, and instead of a business owner taking the profits, the state takes the profits and then spends it recklessly in most cases, and not too bad in some rare cases. Socialism is a luxury that can be had after capitalism build a society.

Are you confusing socialism with communism? There is a difference between the two.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it COMMUNISM is where the state receives all the profits because the state owns everything... whereas socialism still recognizes individual private property and individual private profits, but is not shy about giving the business owners a tax bill for the full amount owed as per the full amount of common-good services that the business owner has accessed in order to become successful. For example, every single child of sam walton owes their fortune to the fact of thousands of public school systems that educated their employees, thousands of public police departments that keep their store locales patrolled, thousands of municipal water treatment areas, thousands of X / Y / Z and so on.

China was communist, where the state owned everything and the people owned nothing, not even the teeth in their head, no such thing as private property. China is no longer communist, they are now mixed capitalist/socialist under state control, recognizing private property and private ownership of profits and such but without vulture capitalists like bain etc. And the result is remarkably formidable.

Please do not aim your piss at communism and instead shower socialism.

Are you confusing socialism with Stalinism? There is a difference between the two.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it STALINISM is where the state receives all the profits because the state owns everything... whereas anarcho-communism still recognizes individual rights.

China was Maoist/Stalinist, where the state owned everything and the people owned nothing, not even the teeth in their head, no such thing as private property. China is no longer Maoist/Stalinist, they are now State centric capitalism, recognizing private property and private ownership of profits and such but without vulture capitalists like bain etc. And the result is remarkably formidable and dangerous.

Please aim your piss at Authoritarian models of social control (Stalinism/state controlled socialism, Capitalism, State Capitalism) instead of generalizing an attack against socialism/anarchism/communism which seeks more egalitarianism and control for workers like you and me.

There I fixed it.

Thanks amrev. To extrapolate.

Socialism: Workers own the means of production, Economic freedom
Communism: Socialism with economic EQUALITY, a big distinction here, along with a few other variances.

FrontSight wrote: Socialism is a necessity that can be had after capitalism build a society.

FS nailed that one, but I took the liberty of changing one word.

Here's the problem with this. I most socialist nations, the worker still gets the shit, in most, even less money, and instead of a business owner taking the profits, the state takes the profits and then spends it recklessly in most cases, and not too bad in some rare cases. Socialism is a luxury that can be had after capitalism build a society.

I agree that state socialism like state capitalism is authoritarian, however capitalism is also authoritarian and empowers a state for the protection of the capitalists. The model you quoted is a simplistic model of a workers coop, which is a model for how things would work in a non authoritarian communist/anarchist/socialist society. It is important to understand what makes capitalism oppressive: it is a system that is highly influenced and modeled after social darwinism--competition between human beings (seen as a virtue). Socialism/Anarchism/Communism (they're pretty synonymous) are modeled after theories on mutual aid like ants, bees, etc. Capitalists would like for us to believe that competition between ourselves is what fuels innovation, but that isn't the case. Science shows that the strongest motivating factors are deeper than just incentives (the carrot) or competition (the stick), but the strongest motivating factors are autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

the comedian wrote:

FrontSight wrote: Socialism is a necessity that can be had after capitalism build a society.

FS nailed that one, but I took the liberty of changing one word.

Socialism can build a society just as well if not better than capitalism. Co-operatives work just as well as capitalist companies, the difference is that under socialism, the workers aren't getting exploited.

gendoikari87 wrote:

the comedian wrote:

FrontSight wrote: Socialism is a necessity that can be had after capitalism build a society.

FS nailed that one, but I took the liberty of changing one word.

Socialism can build a society just as well if not better than capitalism. Co-operatives work just as well as capitalist companies, the difference is that under socialism, the workers aren't getting exploited.

A kind of socialism can exist locally, to be sure, but the transformation of the entire state into a socialist society requires that a certain level of industrialization to be avaliable in order to produce the goods needed by the citizens.
This was the point missed in so many of the " communist" revolutions of the last century.

the comedian wrote: A kind of socialism can exist locally, to be sure, but the transformation of the entire state into a socialist society requires that a certain level of industrialization to be avaliable in order to produce the goods needed by the citizens.
This was the point missed in so many of the " communist" revolutions of the last century.

Why? what can capitalism do that socialism cannot? I mean hell even stalinism outraced us to space and they had a long way to catch up at the beginning of 1917. And that was with massive waste of resources both material and human. If all power had been giving to the soviets, who knows what kind of wonders they could have come up with. They might have had a chance at creating that near utopia they were dreaming about. as it stands lenin fucked them over, and they still beat us into space, after having been little more than serfs at the turn of the century.

the comedian wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote: Socialism can build a society just as well if not better than capitalism. Co-operatives work just as well as capitalist companies, the difference is that under socialism, the workers aren't getting exploited.

A kind of socialism can exist locally, to be sure, but the transformation of the entire state into a socialist society requires that a certain level of industrialization to be avaliable in order to produce the goods needed by the citizens.
This was the point missed in so many of the " communist" revolutions of the last century.

This is why I never understood how Mao, or really even the Bolshiveks were "communists", because in the Maifesto, Marx is quite clear that communist revolutions will occur in places that were capitalist economies, after the inequality of the two classes becomes so vast that it is intolerable to the proletariat. But that isn't what happened in China, or in Imperial Russia. If the cart comes before the horse, is it still "communism"?

This is why I never understood how Mao, or really even the Bolshiveks were "communists", because in the Maifesto, Marx is quite clear that communist revolutions will occur in places that were capitalist economies, after the inequality of the two classes becomes so vast that it is intolerable to the proletariat. But that isn't what happened in China, or in Imperial Russia. If the cart comes before the horse, is it still "communism"?

Well yes the inequality between the two classes as well as the means of production. Both countries had a huge amount of inequality and a limited amount of industrialization, but in both Russia and China there was a vast peasantry. The proletariat historically referred to the industrial worker and not the peasant, which is what Marxists use to slander anarchists-- for wanting to organize the peasantry (the most oppressed) rather than the industrial workers. This is a bit of a myth, as it was early anarchists who really pushed for the idea organizing of the industrial workforce through anarcho-syndicalism (revolutionary unionism, strikes/general strikes)--Marx and Engles later adopted that strategy. Nestor Makhno helped to organize the Ukrainian anarchists during the Russian Revolution, and he organized both industrial proletariat and the peasantry. The Ukrainian model was actually very successful and they were able to defeat several of the white armies, however their success was seen as a threat by the authoritarian centralist Bolsheviks (our way or the highway) and they were crushed by Trotsky and the red army after being betrayed and allied several times.

In the US we don't have a lot of industrial workers anymore, and we don't have a massive agricultural peasantry. Which means whatever revolution we have whenever we have it would be a completely different class and type of workers (my bet is retail, and it'd take place along completely different lines. Just like the founding fathers had examples to look at in the past, we'll have examples to learn from for what to avoid and what to adopt.



Sorry if any of these have already been used.