Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I do not understand why right wingers and anti communists come to this forum to spread their nonsenses We are socialists-communists and our task is to educate workers on the case of socialism. The socialist party is an university of socialism and we have been doing that for more than 100 years. We do not need any amateurs. We have the proper theoretical resources. We will never rest our case in this capitalist society personally, my first love is socialism and the socialist party
Quote:The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE.Your JUSTICE is a capitalist ideological imperative which sanctions war and poverty.In socialism. It is not equal rewards, it is, self determined, free access to the commonly owned products of the commonly owned means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by free men and women.A consequence of freedom from war, by deed or proxy and poverty, relative or absolute for the whole human family.That another fellow worker, brother or sister human, needs more than I do and is or feels, that they are unable to contribute as much as I do, is unlikely to disturb the equanimity of the immense majority, who in order to make the social revolution have risen above such a parsimonious outlook .
Matt wrote:Quote:The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE.Your JUSTICE is a capitalist ideological imperative which sanctions war and poverty.In socialism. It is not equal rewards, it is, self determined, free access to the commonly owned products of the commonly owned means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by free men and women.A consequence of freedom from war, by deed or proxy and poverty, relative or absolute for the whole human family.That another fellow worker, brother or sister human, needs more than I do and is or feels, that they are unable to contribute as much as I do, is unlikely to disturb the equanimity of the immense majority, who in order to make the social revolution have risen above such a parsimonious outlook .
Pure bourgeois garbage, romanticism, and hypocrisy. They are the first ones who create injustice, inequality, wars , killings. This is a society based on legal and illegal crime What kind of injustice are we talking about ? This is laughable , the presidents and ministers of the powerful capitalist powers kill millions of human beings and they have legal immunity and a big pension for the service provided to the ruling class and living in big mansions and living like parasites in the back of the workers .Like Mark Twain said that “the best criminal are in the us congress “, and they have spent around 200 years talking about injustice. The capitalists and their ideologists tailgaters talk about human rights and they are the first violators What rights can we have on a society based on class division? They do have free access to all the resources of the world and we have nothing and we are the real producers and they are a bunch of parasites How long are we going to be defending our own exploiters ?
It is unfair to describe Prakash as a rightwing defenders of capitalism. He's a communist/socialist in our sense as this article of his shows:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.htmlThe problem is that he wants recognition as the "Originator" of the idea, a throwback to the the pre-Marx days of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. It's infuriating arguing with him as he just keeps saying "I am the Great I Am".It must have been just as infuriating to have argued with them.
ALB wrote:It is unfair to describe Prakash as a rightwing defenders of capitalism. He's a communist/socialist in our sense as this article of his shows:http://prakashrp-1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/on-definition-of-communism.htmlThe problem is that he wants recognition as the "Originator" of the idea, a throwback to the the pre-Marx days of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. It's infuriating arguing with him as he just keeps saying "I am the Great I Am".It must have been just as infuriating to have argued with them.Probably he must have a double personality or I have reading comprehension problems
ALB wrote:It's infuriating arguing with him as he just keeps saying "I am the Great I Am".It must have been just as infuriating to have argued with them.Then why do some comrades insist on arguing with them? Ignore them and the "Great I ams' will eventually go away – mentioning no names but that tactic has worked satisfactorily in the past.
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:It's infuriating arguing with him as he just keeps saying "I am the Great I Am".It must have been just as infuriating to have argued with them.Then why do some comrades insist on arguing with them? Ignore them and the "Great I ams' will eventually go away – mentioning no names but that tactic has worked satisfactorily in the past.
That is one of the reasons why I am not getting involved in this type of discussion. The only time that I get involved and I hit hard with my hammer is when they try to throw mud on the Socialist Party. They come here as teachers or innovators, and then, they leave knowing that they are students and amateurs
' Unfortunately, I doubt Gates knows what communism really means anymore than you do. True communists recognise that humans are not equal in terms of their calibre and capability, hence the adage: "from each according to ability; to each according to need". ' ( gnome #218 ) ' Dear gnome, I'm afraid you've lamentably missed the point. Bill does not want to know what the communist position on this point is. Bill questions the validity of the communist position at issue, OK ? ' ( my comment #220 ) ' Would like to add the following points to my comment #220. The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE.How would you deal with such objections, gnome ? ' ( my comment #223 )I expected to have heard something smart and enlightening from you, gnome, in response to my comments #220 & #223 . You may, if you think it's beyond you to find the right points to deal with such stuff, consult some smart canine or feline like the one in the video ( #216 ) you had posted the other day.
' I apologise profusely, but this correspondence must send now. I wish you the best of success in your endeavours. ' ( comment #225 by ALB ) Pardon me, if I'm wrong. You seem to mean the Nobelist economist is right to resort to an enigmatic, deafening silence on the significance of the thesis that he himself endorses, OK ?
You already have an answer to the Gates nonsense.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/originator-t…What justification using his terms of JUSTICE has a member of the parasite class got for accumulating the wealth he has?Instead of bugging us, hang HIM out to dry on his hypocritical capitalist supporting yard arm.
Prakash RP ( #23? ): ' The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to raise a furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE. How would you deal with such objections, gnome ? ( my comment #223 )I expected to have heard something smart and enlightening from you, gnome, in response to my comments #220 & #223 . You may, if you think it's beyond you to find the right points to deal with such stuff, consult some smart canine or feline like the one in the video ( #216 ) you had posted the other day. ' ( my comment #233 ). ' Fantastic ! gnome has accepted that there're some canines and felines that are smarter than him. His post #235 showing a living cat in response to my post #233 can have no other sense, can it ? It also shows that he's outright deprived of the calibre he needs in order to deal with the objections at issue, doesn't it.
The point the sensible canNOT miss is abilities, be it qualitative or quantitative, of different people are different. Therefore, the principle of rewarding unequal pieces of work equally ( because communism canNOT approve of the policy of unequal rewards for unequal pieces of work as it's certain to add to the division of society into the rich and the poor ) adds up to gross INJUSTICE, the way I see it, and so communism is, as the capitalists and the democratic socialists, the co-op socialists included claim, NOT any better than capitalism. Thus, it ought to be crystal clear to the sensible that the adage ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' is NOT the right stuff to deal with such arguments against communism, which adds to the weight of the thesis at issue and its significance. I've taken note of other contenders' points in this regard and would like to respond to all of them very soon.
Prakash RP wrote:'The point is abilities of different individuals, just like their needs, may not be equal. Therefore, the principle of ' from each according to ability; to each according to need ' might be justifiably construed as unequal rewards for unequal amounts of work , RIGHT ? And if unequal quantities of work are exchanged for equal rewards, people like Bill are most likely to make furore claiming that communism symbolises gross INJUSTICE.I dont think you understand what communism/socialism is about Prakesh if you can come out with comments like this. There is no remuneration or material "rewards" for work done in such a society. The basis on which work of performed is completely voluntary (which is itself the logical corrollary of the fact that goods and services will in general be made available on a "free access" basis in such society). Consequently your argument is null and void I think you have completely misunderstood what the expression , 'from each according to ability; to each according to need ' actually means
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.