The Collectivists
- This topic has 16 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello, my name is Stanislav Doskocil I was born in communist controlled Czechoslovakia in 1966. I was a rather regular individual, but I believed in a certain conviction that would rouse me above the collectivists and made me truly great. This conviction was one could own what one earned. So in 1989 I made my exodus of such insanity, I left the collectivist Marxists to there collective farms and there four year plans. I came to America were I believed with the sweat of my brow I could create all that I have envisioned. I have been very successful, I have earned for all i have worked for. But you may ask what is the difference between me and others, nothing simply but i believe in working for what one earns. But it sickens me when parasites asks "wheres my share?", you create something they say "what will the neighbors think", you invent they say "watch out, or you might tread on the toes of god". This is what the collectivists long ago said to me. People like this only exist to weigh down the greatness of man.
This poster has made no attempt tp respond to the replies to his previous message. He has no intention of debating or discussing what he post. He is exactly what he accuses others of being….a parasite …leeching off a website for those who seek to engage in political exchange, sucking up its energy…draining it of vitality…bin him, moderator !!
stanislavdoskocil wrote:Hello, my name is Stanislav Doskocil I was born in communist controlled Czechoslovakia in 1966. I was a rather regular individual, but I believed in a certain conviction that would rouse me above the collectivists and made me truly great. This conviction was one could own what one earned. So in 1989 I made my exodus of such insanity, I left the collectivist Marxists to there collective farms and there four year plans. I came to America were I believed with the sweat of my brow I could create all that I have envisioned. I have been very successful, I have earned for all i have worked for. But you may ask what is the difference between me and others, nothing simply but i believe in working for what one earns. But it sickens me when parasites asks "wheres my share?", you create something they say "what will the neighbors think", you invent they say "watch out, or you might tread on the toes of god". This is what the collectivists long ago said to me. People like this only exist to weigh down the greatness of man.Yeah, but according to you these collectivists are "altruists" and I'm still waiting to hear from you how you figure that a bunch of parasites " weighing you down" and leeching on your efforts are altruistically inclined? The poverty of your argument is exposed for all to see and yet you make not the slightest attempt to address this great big glaring contradiction in your whole argument.. How come? And for your information, revolutionary socialists have been opposing what you call "communist controlled Czechoslovakia" and the like – in reality, state capitalist Czechoslovakia – from the word go and long before you were even a twinkle in somebody's eye. You need to acquaint yourself with some elementary political facts before spouting your ill-informed nonsense. "Collectivism" is one of those empty headed terms bandied about by deluded free marketeers who still think America is the Land of the Free. Its more the land of Big Corporations, Big Brother NSA and Big Rip Offs inflicted on those whose labour has ensured a tiny minority enjoy stupendous wealth while a majority endure varying degrees of poverty and debt servitude. Talk about "working for what one earns". Do you seriously believe that the leaching billionaire class have …erm …"worked" for what they earn? For some reason, the words "pig" and "fly"spring to mind. We live in a "collectivist" world anyway. Who produced the laptop your are typing your posts on? Actually, directly and indirectly , your laptap is ultimately the product of the the world's entire collective labour force. The only question is do we want this collective world to be run in the interest of the few or in the interests of all. You have made it quite plain where you stand on this matter.
stanislavdoskocil wrote:Hello, my name is Stanislav Doskocil I was born in communist controlled Czechoslovakia in 1966. I was a rather regular individual, but I believed in a certain conviction that would rouse me above the collectivists and made me truly great. This conviction was one could own what one earned. So in 1989 I made my exodus of such insanity, I left the collectivist Marxists to there collective farms and there four year plans. I came to America were I believed with the sweat of my brow I could create all that I have envisioned. I have been very successful, I have earned for all i have worked for. But you may ask what is the difference between me and others, nothing simply but i believe in working for what one earns. But it sickens me when parasites asks "wheres my share?", you create something they say "what will the neighbors think", you invent they say "watch out, or you might tread on the toes of god". This is what the collectivists long ago said to me. People like this only exist to weigh down the greatness of man.reminds me of that song we had to sing in Primary School "when i first came to this land, i was not a wealthy man…." which tells you an awful lot of the educational ideology of the progressive 70s i suppose incidentally, the original post is preposterous balderdash, though i am thinking of forming an a capella folk band called The Collectivists and releasing an album entitled "Pete Seeger was a Gramscian revionist"
alanjjohnstone wrote:This poster has made no attempt tp respond to the replies to his previous message. He has no intention of debating or discussing what he post. He is exactly what he accuses others of being….a parasite …leeching off a website for those who seek to engage in political exchange, sucking up its energy…draining it of vitality…bin him, moderator !!No don't "bin him". That's heading down the slippery slope of censoring for control, whereby you ban all that you disagree with or find difficult and even boring. Something that I and others, including Moderator 1, argued against a couple of years back.I agree on the whole this person seems to be a troll, I even have my doubts he is who he claims to be. He's probably posting the same hit and run stuff on every socialist, communist, left wing internet site he can find, thinking he's rattled a few cages. The internet is crawling with this type.I say, anyone so inclined as to publicly post the following line about themselves, deserves to be heard purely for entertainment purposes.
stanislavdoskocil wrote:I was a rather regular individual, but I believed in a certain conviction that would rouse me above the collectivists and made me truly great.But back to my point. Such people are unfortunately common place in the world and as socialists we come across the same tedium again and again. We set ourselves up as targets for it, because of what we believe in. If we try to avoid it for an easier political life, what's the point in being a revolutionary socialist? It's unlikely we'll change the minds of people like this, but the audience can make up their minds as to who has ideas that count for something and who is full of time wasting hot air.If Stanislav wants to post such…err…hard hitting…stuff. I say show it up for what it is, use it as practice if nothing else. Another thing, I've seen other forum members post stuff and never engage in discussion. Can any of us say we answer every question, enquiry and criticism put to us?
Socialist Punk wrote:Another thing, I've seen other forum members post stuff and never engage in discussion. Can any of us say we answer every question, enquiry and criticism put to us?Well, I always engage in discussion, but it seems the SPGB/WSM doesn't do 'discussion' about 'democratic science', if Vin's last thread is anything to go by.I suppose it's just easier to catalogue me with 'Stanislav', for most posters. Not you, though, SP!
LBird wrote:Socialist Punk wrote:Another thing, I've seen other forum members post stuff and never engage in discussion. Can any of us say we answer every question, enquiry and criticism put to us?Well, I always engage in discussion, but it seems the SPGB/WSM doesn't do 'discussion' about 'democratic science', if Vin's last thread is anything to go by.I suppose it's just easier to catalogue me with 'Stanislav', for most posters. Not you, though, SP!
I certainly don't lump you in with Stanislav.I know you get up the noses of some on this site, but I see you as a fellow socialist who is willing to engage in debate about your ideas. You have your issues of disagreement with some Party members on this forum, but who doesn't have disagreements. Within the SPGB there is probably only one area of unanimous agreement, that socialism is a a global, moneyless system of common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by and in the interests of the global community.I guess some see it a lot easier to just ban stuff they don't like. Never thought I'd see that call coming from socialists. I suppose the articles I read in the Socialist Standard, when in my teens, critiquing various aspects of control used by capitalist governments across the globe, were never written with the internet in mind.I guess the irony of calling for a ban on a bloke claiming to be from a former communist country is lost on some here.
Socilialist Punk wrote:Within the SPGB there is probably only one area of unanimous agreement, that socialism is a a global, moneyless system of common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by and in the interests of the global community.[my bold]I certainly fall within this 'area of agreement'.I suppose my problem is that, from what I can tell by some arguments made here, I think that some within the SPGB don't.If 'scientific knowledge' doesn't count as part of 'the worlds resources', it must be a gift from the gods.I think humans produce 'truth'.Those who think, like Stanislav, that 'individuals' acting upon nature, rather than society, are the source of wealth, will also see the source of knowledge as 'individuals', rather than society.For if society is the source, it can be democratically controlled.Money equals Matter. A thing outside of society, a substance available to individuals, a neutral judge of the truth of human effort.
It seems you brain washed "Socialists" or whatever you may call yourself, don't understand the idea of owning what you worked for. I guess you slaves of collectivism don't have a sense of entitlement to your work, or as SocialistPunk suggested you could live in a system where there is no ownership for an individual and the man is simply a slave to the global Zionist system. Wow i knew you "Socialists" loved to sit on your masters lap and beg to have you property, wealth, work, everything even your humanity taken from you by not one man, but everyman. Thinking all the propaganda and all the altruism you thought saving the world was just enslaving it. I envisioned a dream where all men worked and they benefited from the labor they produced, a world where a crook government didnt strangle money from you, a world were people didn't ask for there share, instead they picked up there shovels and worked for it.
Wow…indeed…an actual reply… and it proved i was wrong for which i apologise…i'm impressed But much less impressed from the actual content of the reply.May i suggest you learn something from a person who rightfully can say he is really a self-made man (although he declines to do so), an escaped ex-slave who educated himself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass
Quote:Our best and most valued acquisitions have been obtained either from our contemporaries or from those who have preceded us in the field of thought and discovery. We have all either begged, borrowed or stolen. We have reaped where others have sown, and that which others have strown, we have gathered. It must in truth be said, though it may not accord well with self-conscious individuality and self-conceit, that no possible native force of character, and no depth of wealth and originality, can lift a man into absolute independence of his fellowmen, and no generation of men can be independent of the preceding generation. The brotherhood and inter-dependence of mankind are guarded and defended at all points. I believe in individuality, but individuals are, to the mass, like waves to the ocean. The highest order of genius is as dependent as is the lowest. It, like the loftiest waves of the sea, derives its power and greatness from the grandeur and vastness of the ocean of which it forms a part. We differ as the waves, but are one as the sea. To do something well does not necessarily imply the ability to do everything else equally well. If you can do in one direction that which I cannot do, I may in another direction, be able to do that which you cannot do. Thus the balance of power is kept comparatively even, and a self-acting brotherhood and inter-dependence is maintained.You Bolshevik pigs spout equality over anything but you make fun of a black slave wow thats a great comparison, i guess you commies wanted me to stay.
And just how does citing Douglass make fun of him is beyond my comprehension and it is a strange sort of logic you show.You could give him his full due of respect…, if you take the time to read what he says. After all, that was his purpose…to share his knowledge and experience so other can learn.Or for all your talk of "slaves" and "enslaving" you are actually frightened of what an ex-slave actually has to say about equality and freedom.
You might be impressed, Alan, that he has replied but I'm not impressed by this part of his reply:
Quote:man is simply a slave to the global Zionist system.I must confess, though, that it is unusual to find anti-semitism amongst anarcho-capitalists. I thought that anti-racism, etc was one thing they were ok on.
stanislavdoskocil wrote:It seems you brain washed "Socialists" or whatever you may call yourself, don't understand the idea of owning what you worked for. I guess you slaves of collectivism don't have a sense of entitlement to your work, or as SocialistPunk suggested you could live in a system where there is no ownership for an individual and the man is simply a slave to the global Zionist system. Wow i knew you "Socialists" loved to sit on your masters lap and beg to have you property, wealth, work, everything even your humanity taken from you by not one man, but everyman. Thinking all the propaganda and all the altruism you thought saving the world was just enslaving it. I envisioned a dream where all men worked and they benefited from the labor they produced, a world where a crook government didnt strangle money from you, a world were people didn't ask for there share, instead they picked up there shovels and worked for it.So lets get this straight – you want a world in which individuals are not beholden to anyone else, do not ask for their share from others but simply takes possession of what they themselves produce by picking up their shovels and working for it, so to speakWell lets look at this. Of course I assume your shovel is a metaphor for any kind of tool or implement – from JCB diggers to data communication equipment. But sticking with the idea of shovel in a literal sense, allow me to ask – who do you think made this shovel? Where did the steel that constitutes the shovel's blade come from? What about the wood that forms the handle of the shovel? Who operated the saw mill that sawed the wood out of which that handle was fashioned? Who produced the energy that powered the saw mill? Who produced the the rivets that hold together the turbines that produces the energy that powers the sawmill that saws the wood that forms the handle of your shovel? And so on and so forth. You get my point, yes? The world we live in today is the product of our COLLECTIVE labour. So for all you going about the evils of "collectivism" we live in a world that is, as a matter of fact, essentially collectivised. You and your little shovel wouldn't last one day without you sharing in the fruits of other people's labour The problem is, Stan, it is not us, but you, who does not understand the idea of "owning what you work for". We socialists understood all too clearly the totally interdependent nature of modern production. We understand that nothing that is produced today does not also involve, directly or indirectly, the labour contributions of millions upon millions of other workers – all over the world Furthermore , since production is socialised so , we argue, ownership should likewise be socialised and that, when it comes down to it, there can be no justification whatsoever for private or sectional ownership of the means of production – the factories, farms , utilities etc However, the world in which we live is precisely one in which, overwhelmingly, theses means of production are owned by a tiny minority. According to a just released Oxfam report . The combined wealth of the richest 1 percent will overtake that of the other 99 percent of people next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016. The richest 80 individuals in the world own more wealth than the bottom 3.5 billion put together – thats 3,500,000,000 people!Now I ask you, Stan – do you think that those 80 stupendously wealthy individuals "worked" for their wealth? Do you not consider that it is far more likely that they got their wealth from employing others to work for them? That means paying these others less than the value of what they produce while grabbing the surplus for themselves Actually for all your muddleheaded grasp of even the most basic facts about society, the nature of work and so on, we socialists want the very opposite of what your claim. Far from wanting to "beg" our masters to take our property and our dignity away from us , we want to get rid of our masters completely – or rather to get rid of a situation in which there exists masters and underlings at all. If you want that as well then there is hope that you might also some day become a socialist But please don't confuse us with the "Bolsheviks". The Soviet Union was a state capitalist society , opposed by socialists right from the start, and one in which masters and underlings existed just as they would under your own absurd little anarcho-capitalist dystopia even if you cannot yet see this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.