I should probably be restricted

[gorillafuck]

I'd say the views I associate with now are much more social-democrat or progressive. I wouldn't call myself a socialist anymore.

I await awful, awful restriction.

[RedAnarchist]

That depends. Do you think that capitalism can be reformed, or does it need to be abolished?

[gorillafuck]

I think that some markets would naturally arise in a marketless society. So based on that I'd be on the side of reform.

[RedAnarchist]

Then you probably will be restricted.

[IcarusAngel]

You can be a progressive, a non-socialist, and an anti-capitalist all at the same time, and you would still be considered leftist.

Still, if you do get restricted it will be nice to have some people in here who are for democracy and capitalism (if such a thing can exist) and not Austrian economics, agorism, and other oddities.

[Drace]

I think that markets would naturally arise in a marketless society.
Why?

[gorillafuck]

You can be a progressive, a non-socialist, and an anti-capitalist all at the same time, and you would still be considered leftist.
How can you be anti-capitalist but not a socialist?


Why?
Abolishing markets in certain areas is a bad idea in my opinion that would yield poor results, and the reaction to a bad policy would likely be to have markets come about again.

[Drace]

How can you be anti-capitalist but not a socialist? Those who think capitalism is destructive but yet that socialism is not an alternative, which seems to be your case.

Also, look into market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)?

There is also a book called "A New Socialism" which if I remember correctly proposes an alternative to capitalism and the traditional socialism. Its writer is actually on this board, and I can send it to you if your interested.

I'll reply to your response a bit later.

[ComradeMan]

The only true leftists are anarchists.:D Capitalism is a bad system, there is no way you can reform it, as we are seeing before our very eyes. What scares people, even leftists about the alternative is that it means such a radical change in society that they lose all of their points of reference.

Capitalism works on the basis of for one person to win others must lose and is inherently unfair and inhumane.

[danyboy27]

capitalist is like a rabid dog.

you can somehow control it so it will not bite your child, but one day the leash will break.

coercion dosnt work, even for capitalists.

[Chambered Word]

Abolishing markets in certain areas is a bad idea in my opinion that would yield poor results, and the reaction to a bad policy would likely be to have markets come about again.

Not if the working class is conscious of history and politics. By the communist stage in society, they will be.

[Lord Testicles]

Abolishing markets in certain areas is a bad idea in my opinion that would yield poor results, and the reaction to a bad policy would likely be to have markets come about again.

What areas do you think need markets? and why?

[Ovi]

Abolishing markets in certain areas is a bad idea in my opinion that would yield poor results, and the reaction to a bad policy would likely be to have markets come about again.
Bad policy? It's hard to have a policy that's both democratic and bad. Abolish what?

[mikelepore]

I think that some markets would naturally arise in a marketless society.

Depending on the meaning, that statement isn't a good criterion. In a society without a market system, there will be someone who says to a neighbor "I will give you a basket of my garden tomatoes if you will repair the broken railing on my porch." That may be called a market transaction, even when the formal economic system of society is a non-market system.

[ZeroNowhere]

Depending on the meaning, that statement isn't a good criterion. In a society without a market system, there will be someone who says to a neighbor "I will give you a basket of my garden tomatoes if you will repair the broken railing on my porch." That may be called a market transaction, even when the formal economic system of society is a non-market system.
I don't see what that has to do with a market in the economic sense.


Those who think capitalism is destructive but yet that socialism is not an alternative, which seems to be your case.

Also, look into market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)?Anti-capitalism generally entails opposing the existence of capitalism and advocating another society in its place, generally socialism, and occasionally feudalism (possibly). 'Market socialism' is not anti-capitalist any more than social democracy is capitalist. It continues to leave the social relations of capitalism in place, and hence alienation, the falling rate of profit, crises, the profit motive and fun stuff in general. Companies wouldn't be immune from capitalism any more than co-ops are presently.

[gorillafuck]

What areas do you think need markets? and why?
I think that central planning is a poor way to make consumer goods, and a libertarian socialist economy would lead to money of some kind.


Bad policy? It's hard to have a policy that's both democratic and bad. Abolish what?
Of course it's possible to have a policy that's both democratic and bad. If a girl wants an abortion and her family democratically votes to not let her have one, she should still be allowed to have one. I don't see how that's really relevant, though.

[Zanthorus]

I don't see why you should be restricted as long as you still believe in worker control of the means of production. There are unrestricted people on this board who believe in markets. I don't see opposition to markets as a necessary part of being a socialist (Although I suspect some of the Marxists on the board will disagree with me). :)


How can you be anti-capitalist but not a socialist?

Well some extreme right-wingers are also anti-capitalist. Although I don't think that's what IcarusAngel actually meant.


It continues to leave the social relations of capitalism in place

No it doesn't :confused:

Market socialists still advocate democratic control of the means of production by the workers and the abolishment of the capitalist-worker relationship. How is that leaving the social relations of capitalism in place?


and hence alienation, the falling rate of profit, crises, the profit motive and fun stuff in general. Companies wouldn't be immune from capitalism any more than co-ops are presently.

I agree with all of this apart from the falling rate of profit bit. The tendendency of the rate of profit to fall is based on an inconsistent analysis of the relationship between Use-Value and Exchange-Value by Marx. He correctly asserts that surplus value is created by the wage labourer because of the discrepancy between the wage of the labourer (Their exchange-value) and value of the product they create (Use-Value) however he fails to make the same analysis with regards to means of production (MoP can also cost less than the value they add to goods).


...and a libertarian socialist economy would lead to money of some kind.

Can you outline why you think that?

[gorillafuck]

I don't see why you should be restricted as long as you still believe in worker control of the means of production. There are unrestricted people on this board who believe in markets. I don't see opposition to markets as a necessary part of being a socialist (Although I suspect some of the Marxists on the board will disagree with me). :)
I wouldn't say I necessarily do. Some people might not really want to have to bother managing their workplace.


Can you outline why you think that?
I'm skeptical of whether economic zones would just give eachother what they want when it comes to materials to make stuff, it would probably become trade and then money like we have today would probably evolve out of that.

[Zanthorus]

I wouldn't say I necessarily do. Some people might not really want to have to bother managing their workplace.

Well then I guess you should be restricted.

However I'd like to say why I don't share your skepticism. First of all a fair few people I know have had bad experiences with their managers. On the whole bosses seem to be insensitive to the needs of the workforce and divorced from what's actually going on in the production process. And a lot of the evidence seems to suggest that workers in co-ops enjoy their work more and are more productive.

I also don't see how it's that bothersome to manage your workplace. I mean if you already know what goods you're producing the only problem is with the pace you do the work at and what conditions your working in. And I don't think anyone would be averse to being in control of either of those.


I'm skeptical of whether economic zones would just give eachother what they want when it comes to materials to make stuff, it would probably become trade and then money like we have today would probably evolve out of that.

Many of these issues will become lessened by increases in the technological capabilities of production allowing wider ranges of goods to be produced in smaller areas. And even if trade did arise I can't see it turning into money because money is only necessary in complex market systems where you don't want anything on offer and need to store up value for a later date.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

OP is in the same boat as meeeeeee (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../okay-im-reformist-t84898/index.html?p=1200173)!

[Bud Struggle]

OP is in the same boat as meeeeeee (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../okay-im-reformist-t84898/index.html?p=1200173)!

Me too.*

*I might also have a personal financial situation that may disallow me from full participation in RevLeft politics also.

[hugsandmarxism]

I'd say the views I associate with now are much more social-democrat or progressive. I wouldn't call myself a socialist anymore.

I await awful, awful restriction.

Off to find a new hobby other than revolutionary leftist posturing, eh? Gonna advocate for capitalism with a "friendly face" are we? Good for you... though I don't see why this warrants a thread. Perhaps you need some attention to be payed to you? You need to feel that your falling off the boat into liberalism is going to leave some leftists missing your company?

Well, don't look to me to fight for your "revolutionary soul." If you lack conviction, you're useless. If you can look at a system that is inherently exploitative and try to "reform" it, while ignoring those who don't have the option to stoop to such delusions, to drink up your relative privilege and thumb your nose at human suffering as social-democracy inevitably does, then go do that, and stop wasting our time. Have fun in revleft's zoo.

[Robert]

Now that's what I call a big hug. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Off to find a new hobby other than revolutionary leftist posturing, eh? Gonna advocate for capitalism with a "friendly face" are we? Good for you... though I don't see why this warrants a thread. Perhaps you need some attention to be payed to you? You need to feel that your falling off the boat into liberalism is going to leave some leftists missing your company?

Well, don't look to me to fight for your "revolutionary soul." If you lack conviction, you're useless. If you can look at a system that is inherently exploitative and try to "reform" it, while ignoring those who don't have the option to stoop to such delusions, to drink up your relative privilege and thumb your nose at human suffering as social-democracy inevitably does, then go do that, and stop wasting our time. Have fun in revleft's zoo.

Or maybe the guy has actual concerns. Maybe he has some doubts and some issues with the ways things have played out (and are playing out) with Communism. Maybe he has issues with the way Communism ALWAYS seems to never look the way things are promised. Maybe he has problems with the realities of Communism as opposed to the theory.

There are issues with Communism here Comrade. And for you to gloss them over as they aren't there makes you an accomplice in all of their evil. The same could be said of Capitalists and their evils. When we recognize and face the problems of our respective political theories, then and only then could we move forward.

You want a Revolution--fine. But it better be based more on things you want to succeed than things you oppose. And BoC is taking a moment to try and understand whats best at this point.

Give him a break.

[gorillafuck]

Off to find a new hobby other than revolutionary leftist posturing, eh? Gonna advocate for capitalism with a "friendly face" are we? Good for you... though I don't see why this warrants a thread. Perhaps you need some attention to be payed to you? You need to feel that your falling off the boat into liberalism is going to leave some leftists missing your company?

Well, don't look to me to fight for your "revolutionary soul." If you lack conviction, you're useless. If you can look at a system that is inherently exploitative and try to "reform" it, while ignoring those who don't have the option to stoop to such delusions, to drink up your relative privilege and thumb your nose at human suffering as social-democracy inevitably does, then go do that, and stop wasting our time. Have fun in revleft's zoo.
Fuck you, you pretentious peice of arrogant shit. You think you'll get people to support Stalin like you with that fucking smartass, holier-than-though mouth of yours?

And I made this thread so the people who run this explicitly communist and anarchist website can know, because they don't want reformism on their site and so I felt I'd be courteous enough to tell them.

[hugsandmarxism]

Fuck you, you pretentious peice of arrogant shit. You think you'll get people to support Stalin like you with that fucking smartass, holier-than-though mouth of yours?

At least I'm not a liberal. Go lick the bosses' boot-heels and try to persuade them to be nicer to the working class. I'm sure that will go over brilliantly.

[Bud Struggle]

At least I'm not a liberal. Go lick the bosses' boot-heels and try to persuade them to be nicer to the working class. I'm sure that will go over brilliantly.

Welcome to OI, BoC. Nothing is forever--explore your interests and your beliefs. Get comfortable with your views of the world. Never believe anything without fully understanding why you believe and what you believe.

Be at home here and if there is anything I or any of the other OIers can help you with please feel free to ask.

OI is here for you.

Bud

[Drace]

Anti-capitalism generally entails opposing the existence of capitalism and advocating another society in its place, generally socialism, and occasionally feudalism (possibly). 'Market socialism' is not anti-capitalist any more than social democracy is capitalist. It continues to leave the social relations of capitalism in place, and hence alienation, the falling rate of profit, crises, the profit motive and fun stuff in general. Companies wouldn't be immune from capitalism any more than co-ops are presently."Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) are publicly owned, but the market is utilized.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism#cite_note-0) In a traditional market socialist economy, prices would be determined by a government planning ministry, and enterprises would either be state-owned or cooperatively-owned and managed by their employees. Within this model, the commonly owned enterprises are free from excessive planning, with decision-making on what to produce being left to the management of individual enterprises, allowing them to function more autonomously in a more decentralized fashion than in other socialist economic systems."

But how ironic. A guy asking for a restriction doesn't get it while I do :lol:

[Nolan]

Just curious, BOC, why make this thread and get restricted when you could just keep your reformism to yourself? If you ever change your mind, itll be hard gettin out.

[gorillafuck]

At least I'm not a liberal. Go lick the bosses' boot-heels and try to persuade them to be nicer to the working class. I'm sure that will go over brilliantly.
Haha, at least I don't tell people to read historically bogus pieces of shit like "Another view of Stalin".


Just curious, BOC, why make this thread and get restricted when you could just keep your reformism to yourself? If you ever change your mind, itll be hard gettin out.
It likely would have crept into discussion and that could bring down the quality of all discussion in the main forums.

By the way, I do think the US (and the world) needs a much greater amount of public ownership. I just think doing that with every single product/minor industry is is a bad idea.

[hugsandmarxism]

Haha, at least I don't tell people to read historically bogus pieces of shit like "Another view of Stalin".

You can continue to flail your arms at me all you like (hell, you'll need the practice) but unlike others, I don't humor liberals such as yourself in the OI. I'll leave you to your own futility. ;)

/thread

[gorillafuck]

Please don't pretend that you've been being mature, you're the one who came in here obviously with the intention of trying to provoke a reaction out of me.


But how ironic. A guy asking for a restriction doesn't get it while I do
You were being very transphobic and unapologetic about it (you compared transexuals to necrophiliacs...), but I think you'd probably be unrestricted if you demonstrated that you've changed your views. The stuff you said really shouldn't be tolerated, to be fair to those who voted for your restriction.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Or maybe the guy has actual concerns. Maybe he has some doubts and some issues with the ways things have played out (and are playing out) with Communism. Maybe he has issues with the way Communism ALWAYS seems to never look the way things are promised. Maybe he has problems with the realities of Communism as opposed to the theory.

There are issues with Communism here Comrade. And for you to gloss them over as they aren't there makes you an accomplice in all of their evil. The same could be said of Capitalists and their evils. When we recognize and face the problems of our respective political theories, then and only then could we move forward.

You want a Revolution--fine. But it better be based more on things you want to succeed than things you oppose. And BoC is taking a moment to try and understand whats best at this point.

Give him a break.

There was a lot of wisdom in those words; I would be thanking you right if you had not been restricted. Yes that the many problem we are facing right now, of theory vs. reality. I find it hard to believe that there will be a time when their can have no state. Just as much as I find it hard to believe that there will ever be a time when we don’t see wars.

[Nolan]

There was a lot of wisdom in those words; I would be thanking you right if you had not been restricted. Yes that the many problem we are facing right now, of theory vs. reality. I find it hard to believe that there will be a time when their can have no state. Just as much as I find it hard to believe that there will ever be a time when we don’t see wars.

We wont see wars when there is a pax socialista. Society may fall apart later tho.

[Nolan]

It likely would have crept into discussion and that could bring down the quality of all discussion in the main forums.

Then why not just...go away or something and come back when/if you change your mind?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Then go away, seriously. We don't need people like you who wanted to reforms capitalism.

[mikelepore]

I don't see what that has to do with a market in the economic sense.

The original poster says, "I think that some markets would naturally arise in a marketless society." Becuase of the ambiguity of that statement, I can't determine from that statement that the person has any reason to be a restricted user.

[synthesis]

Sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has already said, but this:
I think that some markets would naturally arise in a marketless society. And this:
What areas do you think need markets? and why? are two entirely different topics of discussion, in some ways a variation on the is/ought dilemma.

To be totally honest, I agree with the OP. Until some nerd in a lab invents some kind of science fiction-y replicator machine, human society will always have to wrestle with the issue of scarcity and finite resources, inevitably resulting in the resurrection of markets in substance if not in form.

If whoever winds up being responsible for the distribution of goods and resources cannot do so in a way that everyone finds acceptable - quite a task - then some will seek out a way to get what they want, with or without the consent of the rest of "the people." One response would be to regard those who participate in "illegal markets" as "enemies of the people" and treat them accordingly.

That seems counter-productive, does it not? I mean, every socialist government in history grappled with the issue of black markets, the latter ultimately outlasting the former in every instance. The real problem is scarcity, not necessarily greed, and I find it difficult to punish people for the conditions in which they live.

A more proper solution might acknowledge black market demand and adjust production accordingly, or even find a way to preempt the markets in the first place by encouraging democratic participation in economic decision-making.

In other words, you can challenge that old adage, "ya can't please everyone," and if you choose to do so, best of luck. As I see it, until we have the technology to actually please everyone, we are haunted by the specter of supply and demand, and as with any other form of exorcism, it is both superficial and frivolous to attribute guilt to the possessed. It's not the vessel, it's the demon; it's not the player, it's the game.

[RGacky3]

I consider myself an syndicalist and an anarchist, however I personally prefer social-democracy to any form of Leninism, which in my mind is just state monopoly Capitalism, because at least in a social democracy, the things that are state controlled are more democratically controlled.


Maybe he has some doubts and some issues with the ways things have played out (and are playing out) with Communism. Maybe he has issues with the way Communism ALWAYS seems to never look the way things are promised. Maybe he has problems with the realities of Communism as opposed to the theory.

Damnit, for the last time, the USSR and any other leninist states were NOT realities of communism, they were realities of state controlled monopoly capitalism. the realities of communism (or should I say true socialism) are in the socialized sectors of social-democratic societies, and during anarchist spain, the zapatista territories (although you have a somewhat dismissive attitude toward them which is kind of douchy in my opinion), the Argentine worker controlled states, free Ukraine, the Soviets before Lenins total takeover, the Venezuelan and Bolivian publicly controlled towns, the Paris commune, various early old religious communities in America, some American indian communities, and so on and so forth.

I would say that Norway was more socialistic than the USSR, at least some of it is democratically controlled.

[gorillafuck]

The original poster says, "I think that some markets would naturally arise in a marketless society." Becuase of the ambiguity of that statement, I can't determine from that statement that the person has any reason to be a restricted user.
You're right, that was way too ambiguous, I should explain that a bit better. I think that a libertarian socialist economy wouldn't work because I'm skeptical that different areas would cooperate as much as they would need to, and I doubt that a centralized socialist economy would be able to produce consumer products and and a lot of light industry very well. And so markets would be needed in certain areas.

That's my thoughts.

[RED DAVE]

You're right, that was way too ambiguous, I should explain that a bit better. I think that a libertarian socialist economy wouldn't work because I'm skeptical that different areas would cooperate as much as they would need toWhy are you skeptical about this?


and I doubt that a centralized socialist economy would be able to produce consumer products and and a lot of light industry very well. And so markets would be needed in certain areas.What is the basis of your doubt? Remember that the notion of "a centralized socialist economy" should not be confused with the bureaucratic state capitalism of the USSR, etc. It's an entirely different, democaritic concept.

RED DAVE

[gorillafuck]

Why are you skeptical about this?
I'm doubtful that different communities would spontaneously all give eachother whatever they needed without charge.


What is the basis of your doubt? Remember that the notion of "a centralized socialist economy" should not be confused with the bureaucratic state capitalism of the USSR, etc. It's an entirely different, democaritic concept.It would probably be difficult and inefficient for the population to democratically allocate how many of every little product certain areas need, factors and needs will change but there can't be new plans set every day. It's impossible to micromanage society that much.

[cop an Attitude]

I'm doubtful that different communities would spontaneously all give eachother whatever they needed without charge.

It would probably be difficult and inefficient for the population to democratically allocate how many of every little product certain areas need, factors and needs will change but there can't be new plans set every day. It's impossible to micromanage society that much.

I have to say that this question has haunted me too. With the fabric of modern society so entrenched in a market based system and then to have something that will no doubly cripple that supply of recourses, there will be conflict. Some communities can't grow corn, some can't fish, some don't have water. The only solution to that, is to have a fully self sustaining system from the bottom-up in a non-hierarchal community. I think that when society finally reaches the tipping point, revolution, die-off, nuke, destruction, what have you; then if you have the right model for peace, you might be able to make a (near) utopia (and there will always be conflict). But until then, we have a painful road ahead of us.

[Che a chara]

reform or a more democratic humane approach to capitalism cannot work if capitalism wants to survive, it will just eat itself up.

what can be placed is basic temporary reforms in certain places within socialism. such a change in policy is bound to be necessary in every economy, but only in the short-term.

[Ele'ill]

I vote that BucketOfCows does NOT get restricted.

Granted, I'm an anarchist and I am restricted. Mainly because some people don't like to prove their ideology is worth a fuck.

[Dr Mindbender]

Abolishing markets in certain areas is a bad idea in my opinion that would yield poor results, and the reaction to a bad policy would likely be to have markets come about again.

Provide some examples. Perhaps we can challenge this perception.

[Wolf Larson]

I'd say the views I associate with now are much more social-democrat or progressive. I wouldn't call myself a socialist anymore.

I await awful, awful restriction.
Keynes was a imperialistic fascist slime ball.