Property

[New Tolerance]

I your opinion what should the concept of property become under socialism?

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

I believe...

Property of residential zones:

The property of homes should be handed over to the government so that they can be monitored. Monitored in means of condition of the house and the amount of people living in the house/apartment or area.

Every town would be split into sectors so the local government can keep track of all the homes. This should serve as a method towards being organized on a large scale and as well as a small scale.

Each sector will have a group/groups of maintenance workers. They will work on the apartments within a sector to maintain standard electricity, plumbing, etc. They would also take place in cleaning, painting; fixing apartments when family’s leave so they are left clean for the next. Also to report any problems in the apartment to the local government so they can deal with it to resolve the problem.

Property of commercial zones:

These zones will be split up into two parts.
- Government owned
- Owned by citizens

Government owned zones will be completely owned by the government. Small scale will include ownership by local government and large scale will include ownership by federal government.

Types of businesses are but not limited to:
- Restaurants
- Travel
- Banks
- Sports (leagues, stadiums)

Non Government owned zones will be owned by citizens but monitored by the government. This is to insure no illegal activity but also to cooperate with the government if any type of major loss occurs. Such as a fire that can completely destroy a book store owned by the local business man. If he shows’s that he can’t rebuild than the government will for him and hand it over back to the local. But there is freedom of personal entrepreneurship.

Types of businesses are but not limited to:
- Restaurants
- Supermarkets
- Printing companies
- Newspapers

Foreign companies may also take part in commercial zones but can be turned away if they have a negative impute into the society.

Property of industrial zones:

These zones will be split up into two parts.
- Government owned
- Owned by citizens

Government owned zones will be completely owned by the government. Small scale will include ownership by local government and large scale will include ownership by federal government.

Types of industrial businesses are but not limited to:
- Agriculture
- Military Manufacture
- Electrical Plants
- Water Plants
- Residential development

Non Government owned zones will be owned by citizens but monitored by the government. This is to insure no illegal activity, protection of workers and there rights but also to cooperate with the government if any type of major loss occurs. Such as a fire that can completely destroy a factory owned by a small scale company. If the owners show that they wouldn’t be able to rebuild than the government will for them and hand it over back to the company to maintain a balance in the economy.

Foreign companies may also take part in industrial zones but can be turned away if they have a negative impute into the society.

Types of industrial businesses are but not limited to:
- Foreign factories
- Home equipment manufacturing “Air conditioners, water filter, bed sheets etc.)
- Shoes
- Clothing

[Vinny Rafarino]

What do you mean by "property"? Are you referring to property in the real estate sense or on a broad "personal property" sense (televisions, cars, etc)?

[New Tolerance]

Property as in what is "owned" by what.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Individual property can never be "aboloshed". There is an instinct called the "comfort instinct" in all primates and most non-human primates that will always require a certain sence of "personal space".

The party does not want anyone to give up their idependent possession, just simply the socially constructed traits of greed and excessive materialism.

Human being will always associate certain possesions to events that have transpired in life, for example;

It is common for people to carry a "trinket" that belonged to a loved one that died.

People have a tendency to keep hold of objects that signify an imortant event in their lives. This is harmless so their is no need to "abolish" the idea of property. To be honest, it could never be done as it goes against human nature.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I believe everyone should have only what they need.

The houses should have the basic bedrooms for the people that live on it (plus some more in case of visits or if the family starts having children), plus some kind of open sector (at least a backyard or something like that).

People need things like TVs, radios, computers to keep busy and entertained when they arent working.

Cars are not important, I mean does people need a Lamborghini to go around their city? If they need a car to work they should receive one.

Private property should be abolished , so that there's no more abandoned shop or big pieces of land that can be used to work because some richie cappie wanted to have a big park. Instead, people should limit to the basic things they need, and communes should control what everyone uses so that everything is used for the common welfare of the society.

So: clothes, houses, electronic devices are used by the ones who use it, but it doesnt mean they can do whatever they want with it, it means they can use it if the society authorizes them to use it.

I hope you got my point.

[sc4r]

Fascinating.

Why should an individual not own a better car than his neighbour? Let alone why not clothing, tinkets etc.

Do you have any reason; or is it just a random desire?

If it is a random desire what makes you think (against al evidence) that many others also want the same basic thing ?

To my mind a fundamental mistake made by many supposed 'Socialists' is to think that it all a nice statement of how lovely things should be (they all have difrerent ideas of course of what constitutes 'lovliness'.

It is not.

It is a way of orgainsing society so that something which is taken to be a more or less universal desire (to achieve fair treatment not based on historical circumstance) can be both attained and maintained.

The rest is only about how such a situation can be achieved.

Clear it from yuur head that socialism has anything to do with rehabilitating criminals, being nice to animals, good treatment of the environment, welfare payments, better fotball teams, or a cary-shary. touchy-feelly society. These things might be wanted by a majority of people in a socialist society, or they might not. A socialist society is (IMHO) likely to be nicer than a capiatlist one simply because it promotes human dignity by providing a level playing field. But these things are not socialism, and they'll only occur even in a socialist society if people want them.

First task is bring in Socailism. If you cant bring yourself to accept that if a majority want to execute shoplifters then executed they shall be, then yuu have not trule grasped the essential nature of the concept.

Marx has much to answer for here. Having devised a way to achieve equality of opportunity and so bring dignity to millions who did not have it he then confused the issue by waxing lyrical about what, in his view, such a situation would ultimately result in. The effect 150 years later is that for far to many people its the lyrical wxing that they are aware of not the genuinely vakuable bit, which was a quite lucid statement of practical rulkes that one might expect a hufge number of people to endorse simply out of informed self interest.

[apathy maybe]

Land is owned by no one! Inheritance does not exist.
Either everyone owns everything or noone owns everything, either way people have things that they use exclusivly but when they die their sons & daughters don't get imidiate exlusive use.

[redstar2000]

Clear it from your head that socialism has anything to do with rehabilitating criminals, being nice to animals, good treatment of the environment, welfare payments, better football teams, or a cary-shary. touchy-feely society.

Since no one has a crystal ball in good working order, this is just as "legitimate" a view of post-capitalist society as any other.

And yet it doesn't sound all that appealing, does it?

In fact, it sort of sounds like now...only without capitalists. A genuine improvement, no question about it, but still...

Granted that much quasi-religious nonsense has been written to the effect of "communism will be like Heaven"...is the proper response one of diminishing our vision to the level of universal membership of the Board of Directors of Socialism, Inc.?

Are there not many changes that we would like to see in a new society? And is not a profound change in the relations of production a good time to press for those changes?

History suggests that in revolutionary periods, many changes that are not directly "economic" or "political" in the usual sense of those words are nevertheless proposed and in some cases implemented. The revolutionary critique of a passing social order extends, willy-nilly, to most or all of its characteristics.

There are certainly people who regard these kinds of developments as a "distraction" from the "main task".

I think that to be a mistaken view, primarily because revolutionary changes reinforce one another and actually serve to draw more people into the entire revolutionary process...to the joy of many and the dismay of some.


Marx has much to answer for here. Having devised a way to achieve equality of opportunity and so bring dignity to millions who did not have it, he then confused the issue by waxing lyrical about what, in his view, such a situation would ultimately result in.

One way to look at it, I suppose...though I doubt the phrase "equality of opportunity" with its contemporary connotations (the "equal opportunity" to get rich) would have appealed to him.

Is there something inherently "wrong" about "waxing lyrical" about post-capitalist society? Should we "reign in" our imaginations and concentrate on the "grubby details" of "how to make Socialism, Inc. actually work"? You know, the new "socialist market" and all that.

To some extent, I suppose it's a matter of personality. Just as there are those who cannot see a supercomputer as anything more than a glorified bookkeeping machine, there are those who cannot see a new society as anything but an improved machine for doing what the old society used to do, only doing it better.

There have always been people who took pride in their "practicality" or "level-headedness" or "tough-mindedness". No "flights of fancy" for these folks; when the first airplane flew, they went out and bought more railroad stock.

Marx and Engels were rather different; though they could be "hard-nosed realists" when circumstances dictated that approach, they never lost the idea of a qualitatively superior form of human society. They "waxed lyrical" because they had a "greater vision" of humanity freed from the bondage of wage-slavery.

They understood that class society diminishes us...makes us less than we could otherwise be.

There is a quote that illustrates this. I don't remember the exact words, but it was along these lines: The abolition of class society marks the end of pre-history and the beginning of truly human history.

If this be a "fault" in Marx, it is one that I enthusiastically endorse.

Or, as the French Situationists used to say...

ALL POWER TO THE IMAGINATION!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

very lovely RS. And as usual seesntially contentless.

Socialism has nothing to do with the lovely visions. Why does it matter? because people like you distract attention from what can be done (and sometimes in your case actually oppose it). Anyone suggesting something which may lead to improvement, but not prepared to risk ridicule from the unconvinced by waxing lyrical about totally speculative benefits (some of which have absolutely bog all to do with anything Socialist and rely purely on flights of fancy about what may, or may not be discovered), seems to be disowned by you. Which in itself is fine; but unfortunately non-socialist also pick up on it and rejoin 'Oh but you are all a bunch of airy fairy hippies' (I had some of that this morning).

Socialism is a system. Not a religion. It delivers systematic changes in the nature of economic relations between people. Its not unreasonable to expect that a fairer society economically would produce people with a fairer outlook on life in general; but it is not something to focus on especially because it is merely speculative.

Theres no actual reason why a fully Socialist Society should not execute jay walkers following cursory trial. And you'd do well to recognise this. Redstarism might not, But Socialism could.

If you want to be a hippy fine. I dont object. If you want to be a hippy and a Socialist I dont actually care either. But dont start telling people that Socialism is about being a hippy, because most people dont want to be hippies.

Its no accident that every single Socialist achievemtn has been made by the sorts of people you dismiss. Its because these people are capable of convincing people of practicalities. You are capable of convincing kids who want 'the world to be really nice' that it could be; but unfortunately even these wil grow out of it.

Marx and Engels were indeed a bit pragmatic. In case you forgot they expressly suggested implememtation methods which you expressly reject. Thats the difference Marx waxed lyrical, but he also waxed practical. You unfortunately focus attention on the lyrical while actually denouncing the practical.

By all means say that class divisions (by which you actually mean vast wealth gaps lets face it) diminsih people. I agree. But that does not alter the fact that Socialism should be expected to undiminish people as a consequence of what it does, not directly.

Carry on hacking pied piper. Your tunes sound lovely and will surely attract the innocent. But you need more than a nice line in song to make steelmills turn and electricity generators generate, or to convince grown ups that you have any idea how to achieve these things.

P.S. Engels - bourgeoise?

[Saint-Just]

In socialism you will own what the state gives to you until they choose to take it from you. Everything you acquire will have been produced due to the collective efforts of society and thus they choose what they give to you and choose what and when they will take something from you. They do this through a means of administration that is the state beaurocracy which everyone in society gives their tacit consent.

The way in which this is done is based on what the working-class party believes to be fair, just and necessary.

Socialist societies do go through stages and the scenario I described will be the one ultimately worked towards. I have not talked about communism here though.

[crazy comie]

Private property will be abolished. But pepole will of course have little trinkets etc.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 22 2003, 03:57 PM
In socialism you will own what the state gives to you until they choose to take it from you. Everything you acquire will have been produced due to the collective efforts of society and thus they choose what they give to you and choose what and when they will take something from you. They do this through a means of administration that is the state beaurocracy which everyone in society gives their tacit consent.

The way in which this is done is based on what the working-class party believes to be fair, just and necessary.

Socialist societies do go through stages and the scenario I described will be the one ultimately worked towards. I have not talked about communism here though.
Jesus mate, count me out. I aint one of ya.

I mean in a practical sense everyone only 'owns' what society allows you to own in any ideology more complex than that of animal behaviour (including capitalism).

But to actually enshrine this as a definite statement rather than implict reality ? No thanks. I have a bit of individuality, and I will nt relinquish it to any state or to any society. Nor, would anyone wit an oucne of self respect.

I'll work for society and others, I wont allow them or it to utterly dictate to me; I wonjt renounce my sense of individuality.

Please dont ever state this view to anyone who isn't clued up about Socialism. You might as well erect an ABANDON HOPE, DO NOT ENTER sign in 20' neon letters.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Property and individuality do not go hand in hand scar. I do feel that comrade Mao needs to expound further on this issue as making it as black and white as he did leaves many questions unanswered and many scenarios unresolved.

For example, your clothing. These items belong to you, the state would have no justifiable right to take them away from you unless you were imprisoned for subversion. Or, let's say you like to fly model aeroplanes. Would it be even remotely justifiable for one day the state to knock you up and advise that your aeroplane is going to be taken from you and given to little Billy don the way? Of course not.

[redstar2000]

P.S. Engels - bourgeoisie?

Yes, and though not big, not petty either.

History is rich in such oddities of chance and circumstance. Napoleon - Frenchman? Hitler - German? Stalin - Russian?

Were anyone to suggest that Engels by virtue of his very existence "disproves" the Marxist analysis of class, I would simply point out that for every Engels there have been millions of bourgeois individuals who have supported the rule of their own class unconditionally.

As one would reasonably expect...if Marx were right.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 22 2003, 10:57 AM
In socialism you will own what the state gives to you until they choose to take it from you. Everything you acquire will have been produced due to the collective efforts of society and thus they choose what they give to you and choose what and when they will take something from you. They do this through a means of administration that is the state bureaucracy which everyone in society gives their tacit consent.

The way in which this is done is based on what the working-class party believes to be fair, just and necessary.

Socialist societies do go through stages and the scenario I described will be the one ultimately worked towards. I have not talked about communism here though.
I rather admire the blunt honesty of this forthright statement.

It is a clear statement of Leninist intentions without cosmetics.

Note in particular that little phrase "tacit consent"...that means in the absence of armed insurrection, there is a presumption of popular approval.

Does it sound like something you'd want to be a part of?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 01:51 AM

P.S. Engels - bourgeoisie?

Yes, and though not big, not petty either.

History is rich in such oddities of chance and circumstance. Napoleon - Frenchman? Hitler - German? Stalin - Russian?

Were anyone to suggest that Engels by virtue of his very existence "disproves" the Marxist analysis of class, I would simply point out that for every Engels there have been millions of bourgeois individuals who have supported the rule of their own class unconditionally.

As one would reasonably expect...if Marx were right.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
You miss the pint Hack.

I'm not gonna be executing all the bourgeoie; I'll take their support. You have on many occasions said that you utterly denounce them, all of them.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 22 2003, 11:03 PM
I do feel that comrade Mao needs to expound further on this issue as making it as black and white as he did leaves many questions unanswered and many scenarios unresolved.
Yes, I gave a very basic answer since I did not have the patience to go into much more detail. In addition, the fundamentals of what I articulate have been before by others.

I think this is a fair statement:

Private property will be abolished. But pepole will of course have little trinkets etc.

Albeit from someone who most fittingly describes the term elijahcraig created: 'redstarist'.

What I mean is that ultimately, in socialism, property such as clothes, housing etc. will be allocated by what the state deems necessary or decides to afford any individual. If the state then decided you should live in a different house you will move to a different house and so on. Nothing will be property in the terms that it has value for which it can be traded.

Those who desire things will have to request them from the state. There will be basic entitlements in terms of housing, clothes, furniture, vehicles etc. It is usually common sense what people need.

What I talk about is something I cannot envision well. In the socialism I see, people will get accomodation, things they need for study and work. But they will be given currency to purchase things such as food, clothing etc. Only things that require small sums of currency will be purchased. These things will then of course be your property.

[Vinny Rafarino]

We are then in full agreement as usual comrade Mao.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 10:29 PM
Please dont ever state this view to anyone who isn't clued up about Socialism. You might as well erect an ABANDON HOPE, DO NOT ENTER sign in 20' neon letters.
Yes Comrade RAF. I suspect though that in the first stages of socialism there would still be masses private property. At the beginning it would be more of a case of confiscating property that should really belong to the state.

Also, sc4r. I suspect on those grounds I would have more success in gaining power than you, not that I have any aspirations, since I would tell people anything to gain power.

[sc4r]

I also admire your forthrightness Mao. I'm not left feeling that you are hiding anything from anybody.

My question would be WHY ON EARTH SHOULD YOU WANT THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBE? WHY SHOULD ANYONE WHO SEES THEMSELVES AS AN INDIVIDUAL WANT IT?

What purpose does it fulfil? How is human dignity enhanced?

I'm not a hive animal, not are most of us. I see no reason to abitrarily grant such sweeping power over my life to an abstract concept like 'the state'. I suspect anyway that what I would actually be doing if I agreed to such a thing would be to grant power over myself not to 'the state' but to 'people who say they are the state'.

If you believe that a notion like 'the state' is moe important TO INDIVIDUALS than INDIVIDUALS then of course I can see that your ideas make perfect sense, even though I would not want them. Is that what you believe? Honestly? if 'the state' said to you 'kill yourself right now' would you? Honestly?

You see philosophically it does not make much sense to me at a deep level:

I assume you are not saying that you would allow just any state to asume this primacy?

That being so you are ipso facyo saying that it is you that are more important (since it is you that chooses the state not vice versa).

But if you hold that view how can you sublimate your desires to that of the state?

Do you see the problem? It looks like you are saying something which you surely cannot really truly believe at a deep level; and that being so why should you expect others to; and THAT being so means that you are supporting an idea which you dont truly believe yourself and to which you cannot really expect others to believe in. And IF THATS so you have created a very unhealthy and unstable dynamic in your isea of a society. A dynamic that must surely lead to problems sooner or latter.

Or of course I could just be misunderstanding. I dont after all pretend to have any empathy with what you are saying.

[crazy comie]

I am not redstarist.

[redstar2000]

My question would be WHY ON EARTH SHOULD YOU WANT THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBE? WHY SHOULD ANYONE WHO SEES THEMSELVES AS AN INDIVIDUAL WANT IT?

What purpose does it fulfill? How is human dignity enhanced?

Couldn't be because he expects to be one of the guys in charge, could it? Maybe? You think?

I note with interest that you invoke that fuzzy concept "human dignity". That's not like you.

What you are supposed to ask is "will it work?".

And the answer is yes, of course, it will "work", at least for a while.

But if you don't mind a little advice from someone who has had some experience in a Leninist party, it's really best to lock in your seat on the central committee before the revolution.

Otherwise, things could get a bit...unpleasant.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

If you believe that a notion like 'the state' is moe important TO INDIVIDUALS than INDIVIDUALS then of course I can see that your ideas make perfect sense, even though I would not want them. Is that what you believe? Honestly? if 'the state' said to you 'kill yourself right now' would you? Honestly?

Collective, individual and state are complex concepts. I believe that the interests of the collective supercede that of the individual. Thus I believe the state should have the interests of the collective over that of the individual. In that sense you could suggest I believe that the interests of the state supercede that of the indidivual.

I believe that every indidivual should be most interested in the interests of the collective.

I see no reason to abitrarily grant such sweeping power over my life to an abstract concept like 'the state'

What I was talking about was the state's power over property. In addition I believe in a state undivorced from the people; one with checks and balances to limit its power.

if 'the state' said to you 'kill yourself right now' would you? Honestly?

Not in this society, I would not even contemplate it. In a socialist society I would contemplate it. I think I would conclude that although it may benefit the collective my own instincts would want to preserve my life. However, I cannot see how my death could benefit the state, if I could see how it would I think I may seriously consider it. As I said I may decide to protect my life ultimately having considered it. In this case the state may choose to kill me.

That being so you are ipso facyo saying that it is you that are more important

It would be what I see as progressive. I believe that socialism as a system of society is justified by the ideology of socialism. In a very general sense I would say that I would give such a role to the state if I regarded the state as beneficial to society, is that not the case with everyone?

I would support the state in the kind of society I desire. As a result it is likely that I would never be a threat to it, thus I would not be killed. If I was inadvertently killed it would be an unfortunate mistake but would not be worthy of removing its authority. If masses of people were inadvertently killed then obviously there is a great problem in the system and things need to change. Of course such a thing would try to be avoided, by all rational individauls, from the outset of the creation of such a state. This would be done by analysing the past, looking at the present and using logic to create a workable model of society.

I also admire your forthrightness Mao. I'm not left feeling that you are hiding anything from anybody.

Thank you.

Having said all this, there are things I value more than socialism, or any socialist state. In reality a socialist state would not try to take them from me however.

Couldn't be because he expects to be one of the guys in charge, could it? Maybe? You think? -redstar2000

You are wrong here. I do not expect to be in charge. This is the kind of world I wish I and everyone else to live in. I am not qualified to be 'one of the guys in charge' and likely never will be, nor do I desire such a role. I give my support to those who I think should be in charge.

lock in your seat on the central committee before the revolution. -redstar2000

The party has power and is thus dangerous. I would suggest that in the party you are more vulnerable to any purges (which I think is what you are suggesting). It is easier to exist as a dissident in the regime outside the party.


I dont quite see Mao even as neccessarily an opponent. -sc4r, in the post below this.

You are right to think so in terms of the type of society you wish to create. I see it as something although not completely desirable for me, beneficial to first-world countries. In addition I think your kind of politics have more popularity in a first-world country. In any movement loyalty and support is important in advancing it.

Equally though I see redstar2000's movement as desirable comparative to capitalism. Although his views do conjure images of uncontrollable chaos and societal degeneration and possibly total collapse. I think his views lack order, discipline and authority so I would be far more careful in what one could possibly be getting themselves into.

[sc4r]

Redstar - I see that as usual you feel happier being clear at answering questions about other peoples views than about your own. The answers are clear, they are just not actually the answers the other person would give. In other words they do not tell the truth.

I have never objected to the use of abstract or subjective terms about things which are basically emotional states. I object to wooliness when talking about practicalities (like how an economy would work) and systematics.

Would Mao's ideas 'work' - that rather depends upon what you mean by work. Have I questioned it ? well yes I sorta did, in that I asked what they were supposed to achieve- remember? And he answered; pretty clearly, considering it was such a difficult and deep question. I cant say I'm completely convinced they have rock solid foundation in unshifting reality. I'm not totally convinced they dont have the sort of stroboscope quality that poor philosphies always have (and which yours have to a degree I've never witnessed before). But they are not so transparrently shallow or contradictory that I cannot think that there is something I'm missing. I intend to reflect upon them.

Could a central state manage some sort of decent command economy - yes it could. Would that economy have much chance of efficiently producing the diversity of goods that one would expect individuals to want? No I dont see how. But then Mao is not actually saying that he wants it to; and I've made my case for a better system elsewhere (Market socialism), I dont need to simply repeat it ad infinitum.

You cannot seem to see why you, and your notions are singled out for special criticism by me. Its easy - Your notions are contradictory; your answers are evasive; your statements are worryingly pleasing to the naive eye; and your attitude is insulting.

It means RS that I dont like or trust you personally. With Mao I merely see his beliefs and ideas as worse than mine. Its not the same thing chum. I can respect even an opponent if he is honourable. I dont quite see Mao even as neccessarily an opponent mind. More like a friend I dont quite understand.

I dont see you as honourable ( a far worse sin in my eyes than being an enemy).

[redstar2000]

I don't quite see Mao even as neccessarily an opponent mind. More like a friend I don't quite understand.

Translation: potential customer.


I don't see you as honourable.

Likewise.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RyeN]

The need for trinkets is interesting. If you need small things why not larger things.
Propertey is a myth created by capitolism in order for that system to work. You dont own your car. A piece of paper means nothing. If i want it I can take it. Sure there are reprocutions for such action but by who. The gouvernment, Capitolist Pigs making laws to enforce Capitolism. Down with propertey.

Agreed the transition to Socialism will be slower, I atribute this to years of Capitolist oppresion. When we start learning to share what we have in a Socialist societey the need for things will diminish. Esspecialy with Nano technologie. In the Socialist Empire I see there will be materialism at first but the wealth will be distributed much more evenly. Creating less greed.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:02 AM
The need for trinkets is interesting. If you need small things why not larger things.
Propertey is a myth created by capitolism in order for that system to work. You dont own your car. A piece of paper means nothing. If i want it I can take it. Sure there are reprocutions for such action but by who. The gouvernment, Capitolist Pigs making laws to enforce Capitolism. Down with propertey.

Agreed the transition to Socialism will be slower, I atribute this to years of Capitolist oppresion. When we start learning to share what we have in a Socialist societey the need for things will diminish. Esspecialy with Nano technologie. In the Socialist Empire I see there will be materialism at first but the wealth will be distributed much more evenly. Creating less greed.
This sound fine. But of course what it does not do is explain WHY materialsm will diminish.

Sorry but it is just a speculation. nothing more. You cannot expect most people to adopt a political system on the basis that it will work fine provided something totally at odds with experience occurs. You saying you are sure it will happen will cut no ice whatsoever.

[RyeN]

People dont need things. Your car or house or clothes dont make you who you are. Or your lack there there of doesnt dictate who you aren't. I think this Idea will be an easier sell than you think. When the wealth of the population is spread out among everyone there will be only a small portion of people who will have less than before. So in actuality your not giving anything up because you dont really have anything now anyway, but your gaining much more. Free your mind

[RyeN]

There is something coming soon that will rock the foundations of our lives. The technological revolution. .

[crazy comie]

trinkets = pictures of lovers parents etc things of centimental value

[crazy comie]

The mases are more inportent than the individual.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 07:57 AM
People dont need things. Your car or house or clothes dont make you who you are. Or your lack there there of doesnt dictate who you aren't. I think this Idea will be an easier sell than you think. When the wealth of the population is spread out among everyone there will be only a small portion of people who will have less than before. So in actuality your not giving anything up because you dont really have anything now anyway, but your gaining much more. Free your mind
Ww dont need hardly anything in the sense of not being able to survive without it (physically or emotionally).

But we sure as heck want things, and we often describe these wanted things as our needs. In any reasonable interpretation of 'to each according to his needs' it is this sense that is being used. 'Needs' meaning things we can reasonably and fairly expect to get.

It after all a central tenet of both Socialism and communism that a worker should recieve the full fruits of his own labour. In a modern developed economy no-one would interpret this as meaning he is entitled to the particular part of the particular commodity he himself was directly responsible for. It means a fair part of the total produce of the society.

So (to repeat the question) how are you going to determine what specific things are wanted by each person? How are you going to decide how much of any particular commodity is fair. YOu cannot simply say 'take whatever you want' because this practically guarantees there will not be enough to go around; you cannot say we will divide everything up equally - because this guarantees some people are given things they have absolutely no desire for at all (whicvh means a lot of wasted effort). When you look at production goods the situation is even more difficult because the assessing the strength of the need / desire/ value can be critical to ensuring that a reasonable amount of actual consumables is produced.

For all I know you personally are an ascetic individual whose desires avtually do equate closely to his needs (in which case get rid of the computer you are using, there are those who actually 'need' it far more). But most of us are not.

I dont absolutely need a nice looking tie. But I'm sure a lot happier wearing a nice one than a cheap and nasty one. There are plenty of people who would not give a stuff about their tie but would want to drink more than me. Wheres the harm in allowing us BOTH to be happy. This is what a market does. Lets as many people as possible be as happy as possible.

If of course you believe that people DO NOT CARE about material possessions; if you think this is irrelevant to them; then nothing I say will convince you. But if you think that you are flat wrong. I could imagine a society developing in which this was not true, but it's infantile to think that people will go from what they are like now to a completely different perspective overnight and without any gradual process.

My way support both views. Your way support only the extreme asctetic one. Which is right? Ask 10 random people and see. I know where my money is; I'll even give good odds.

[RyeN]

Well i feel sad for you, because your vision of Communisum has been raped by capitolist views and intrests. They even have you thinking that

Quote: "Needs' meaning things we can reasonably and fairly expect to get."

If your vision of communisum is living in a small dwealing with next to nothing and just going to work day in an out. I would understand your hesitance my friend, but thats a twisted view of something beatiful. Communisum seeks to better the lives of everyone. Less work hours in the week and more pay. There was never an idea to rob people of thier things, however have a more level market place for anything you want. If you like fancy ties and thats what you want to spend your wages on fine.

Do know the nike corperation. In a comunist world instead of 14 billion dollars in profit going to some board members who only real acomplishment was heritage. Nike would now be owned by the gouvernment so that money goes towards things like health care and education, and back to the workers in more pay and less hours. Instead of some Bourgeois pigs third Mansion in Tuskanie.

All you need will be given to you by the union, within reasonable grounds.

[sc4r]

Oh for gods sake. Have you been studying ar Redstars academy ?

I've just said that My vision of communism and socialism is a world where everybody gets as much of what they want as possible and you say 'If your vision of communisum is living in a small dwealing with next to nothing and just going to work day in an out'.

Do any you idealistic anarchists/ and communists listen to anything anyone ever says? Do any of you actually think for even a second?

Am I a bit angry ? Bet your life I am. Because my ideals are apparently shared mostly by egocentrics, who tell me how much they care; but who cant actually be arsed to spend 5 mins thinking 'now hang on he says he is a socialist, just possibly he is not a capitalist', and then 2 mins more actually reading what is bloody said.

The truth is of course, that just like Redstar you probably have not the smallest commitment to actual communism or socialism. Maybe to you its a personal adornment, or a fad to make you look clever and differenr. That would explain why discusion with you will be met with the sort of response Spice Girls fans gave to anyone who had the temerity to suggest that (for example) Posh was a talentless clothes hanger.

Anyone can repeat the slogans. Trouble is, that 95% of people are going to ask 'whats behind them'. and if you cannot come up with better answers than to say 'it will be alright' they'll ignore you. Which is of coutrse exactly what 95% of people do. Why? because 95% of what 95% of people know about socialism comes from arrogant idjits such as your goodself.

I'm in a bad mood. I'm not inclined to talk charitably. I've been a socialist probably longer than you have been alive. The chance that you come even close to having invested as much in this cause as I have is about nil. And you call me a capitalist!!!!! What do you think I feel about that? Take a wild guess. Do you even know what Capitalism means anyway? Not 'what does liberal democracy result in', but 'what is the ideology of capitalism, and why do so many people say they like it'; I actually doubt it but Ill tell you - TO A VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION, AND SHORN OF ALL THE EMPTY SLOGANS CAPITALISM IS A WORKABLE VERSION OF ANARCHY. IT IS ANARCHY WITH JUST ONE SIMPLE EXTRA PRINCIPLE THROWN IN SO AS TO MAKE IT PRACTICAL. I expect hate mail. But its the truth.

If the best contribution to this discusion you can make is to reveal the astounding News that a) NIKE make a lot of profit; b) that profit is the result of exploitation and c) they would not be allowed to do it under Socialism - Then I suggest you direct it at someone who might not know this already (maybe there is someone somewhere). JESUS, of all the ludicrously obvious statements that one takes the biscuit. DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT I CALL MYSELF A SOCIALIST AND DONT BOTH KNOW THAT AND OPPOSE IT???? Why not call me a lying moron directly; it amounts to the same thing.

rant off.

Sign me up for the Leninist/Stalinsit party RAF. If we have to ever rely on gaining intelligent support from this sort I might as well give your ideas a throw of the dice. I reckon they wont quite cut it like a more democratic from the outset approach might, but they have 100x more chance than anything this lot might ever dream up or understand or get behind. Lets give em a good time whether they want it or not.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 23 2003, 02:43 PM
I am not redstarist.
If we can get the Hack to say this, then we may be able to turn him into a communist!


There is a problem with the idea that socialism will in any way be "simpler" than capitalism. This could not be further from the truth. It is at least twice as hard to operate a socialist society unsder global socialist conditions (where the capitalist market has no affect on the value of goods and commodities) There is quite a bit more red-tape involved the in production and distribution process as well as the need for double the amount of bodies needed to keep the system operation.

When you introduce an economic platform that must use trade unions and cencus bureau information to guage the value of goods, you inevitable create the need for many more individual jobs (not a bad thing) As we all understand, the more bodies involved, the more complicated the process.

[redstar2000]

I'm in a bad mood.

Aren't we all, squire, aren't we all. I guess people get a little testy in periods of reaction, like this one.

For example, I find remarks like this a little bit irritating...


Oh for god's sake. Have you been studying at Redstar's academy?

If you wish to vent your spleen at someone whom you perceive has made an unjust criticism of your views, that's your prerogative.

To imply the possibility that "they learned it from Redstar" is entirely unwarranted. It is on the same level as elijahcraig's implied assertion that anyone who says anything that I might agree with is "redstarist scum".

If you wish to attack my views, quote from me. If you wish to attack someone else's views, quote from them.

Do not confuse matters by attributing their views to me or my views to them.

You are confused enough as it is; for example...


TO A VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION, AND SHORN OF ALL THE EMPTY SLOGANS, CAPITALISM IS A WORKABLE VERSION OF ANARCHY. IT IS ANARCHY WITH JUST ONE SIMPLE EXTRA PRINCIPLE THROWN IN SO AS TO MAKE IT PRACTICAL.

This is word-play, of course. You are not using anarchy in its political/economic sense--non-hierarchal social organization, mutual aid and cooperation, etc.; you are using the word in its traditional sense--chaos, lawlessness, disorder, "the war of all against all".

In the latter sense, capitalism is certainly "anarchic"...so what? Is that something "good"? Or do you wish to suggest that political/economic anarchists should "embrace" capitalism if they are to be "consistent"?

Or, most likely, were you just tapping keys on your keyboard without any idea of what you were trying to say...except "CAPS LOCK"?


Sign me up for the Leninist/Stalinist party RAF.

As I noted in an earlier post, there's enough similarity in your views for that option to "make sense".

Both of you want a "strong-state socialism". Both of you want a market-based economy and wage-slavery. Both of you worship at the altar of "efficiency". Both of you believe in your own capabilities to "run things" better than 99.99% of the working class.

You think a "democratic" gloss on such arrangements would be "an easier sell"...RAF is blunter in his intentions.

A division of labor is clearly in order: RAF takes care of "engineering & product development" and you handle "marketing & sales".

The first public offering for Socialism. Inc. should be interesting to see. But one thing is certain: the customer service line will always be busy.

And, speaking of the sheep-herder...


There is a problem with the idea that socialism will in any way be "simpler" than capitalism. This could not be further from the truth.

That is fairly blunt. In Socialism, Inc., a vast, arrogant bureaucracy appears to be required to make it function with even limited efficiency. But the "discipline" of the market will certainly help.

Imagine a giant corporation, so large that it actually contains all or nearly all of the entire economy. That's Socialism, Inc.

The folks at the top do what people at the top of large corporations do now...command. The people at the bottom (most of us) do what we do now...obey or resist.

In the upper regions, life is sweet. Down where most of us will be, life is shit...just like now.

I'm no "expert" in these matters, of course, but I think I can safely predict that Socialism, Inc. is going to be one hell of a tough sell.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

TO A VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION, AND SHORN OF ALL THE EMPTY SLOGANS CAPITALISM IS A WORKABLE VERSION OF ANARCHY. IT IS ANARCHY WITH JUST ONE SIMPLE EXTRA PRINCIPLE THROWN IN SO AS TO MAKE IT PRACTICAL.

That's quite a mess. You are trying to equate anarchism to capitalism -- two opposites? What a strange thing to do.

This can only be seen as an attempt to do what the capitalists have done ever since modern anarchism came into existence -- discrediting it via jumbling the meanings of words. Why else would you bother to mention anarchism when it has not even been mentioned in this thread yet?


I have a present for you also -- it is called the lower case letter. You can use it for every letter in a sentence, except for the letter at the start of a sentence and names. Enjoy!

[Blackberry]

Sign me up for the Leninist/Stalinsit party RAF. If we have to ever rely on gaining intelligent support from this sort I might as well give your ideas a throw of the dice. I reckon they wont quite cut it like a more democratic from the outset approach might, but they have 100x more chance than anything this lot might ever dream up or understand or get behind. Lets give em a good time whether they want it or not.

I hope your experience in the sales department will be worthwhile when you're selling the Party's newspaper.

[Vinny Rafarino]

That is fairly blunt. In Socialism, Inc., a vast, arrogant bureaucracy appears to be required to make it function with even limited efficiency. But the "discipline" of the market will certainly help.

Imagine a giant corporation, so large that it actually contains all or nearly all of the entire economy. That's Socialism, Inc.

The folks at the top do what people at the top of large corporations do now...command. The people at the bottom (most of us) do what we do now...obey or resist.

In the upper regions, life is sweet. Down where most of us will be, life is shit...just like now.

I'm no "expert" in these matters, of course, but I think I can safely predict that Socialism, Inc. is going to be one hell of a tough sell.



You have a very good imagination Hack. It's funny you developed all these "theories" that I condone based on this statement from me;

There is a problem with the idea that socialism will in any way be "simpler" than capitalism. This could not be further from the truth


Good grief man, you need a 900 number. Or perhaps get to writing children's books. Kiddies find a hefty imagination neat-o bandeet-o. Any other words you want to attempt to put in my mouth Miss Cleo?


"Cawl mi naw far yer free readin' mon!

[redstar2000]

You have a very good imagination Hack. It's funny you developed all these "theories" that I condone based on this statement from me;

There is a problem with the idea that socialism will in any way be "simpler" than capitalism. This could not be further from the truth.

No, actually it's based on reading a great many of your posts.

I just simply replaced your spurious "marxist" terminology with the actual names for the things you propose to do.

What you really have "for sale" is a "new" "improved" "revolutionary" brand of...class society, complete with a shiny new ruling class that will include both you and the reformist (if you can actually get him to sign up).

Speaking of which, have you told him about the probationary period? You know, where he has to spend 40 hours a week standing on a street corner hawking the party's rag. What's it called, The Worker's Dissembler or something like that?

I don't think he knows about that part yet. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

No RS I'm not indulging in wordplay. I Meant Anarchism. 'Libertarian Socialism' is just Capitalism without the thing that makes Capitalism a cohesive system.

I'm hardly surprised that every Anarchist is going to deny this. They dont, obviously, think of it this way. Fairly obviously all anarchists have a million and one slogans which proclaim how totally unlike capitalists they are; and I dont imagine for one second that any Anarchist has the same material desires a Capitalist would.

But the two are virtually identical functionally . An outsider can see this very clearly and can recognise that the first hints of Capitalist economics are made implicit in some of the more practical suggestions for how Anarchism might actually work (which never, even so, get very close to actually being practical or explicit mind).

Anarchism would turn into either lassez faire Capitalism, or into a sort of small social group version of it with rights to means of production owned not by individuals (as in Lassez faire) but by communes or groups to the exclusion of others. Its really quite implicit in the descriptions.

I'm not saying any Anarchist thinks like this. They avoid such thoughts like the plague and get around having to by being very very vague as to how a large Anarchist economy would work. But it is there; and it is what would happen unless Anarchism instead mutated into hirarchic socialism anyway.

You perhaps think it is co-incidental that words Libertarian and Anarchist and Anarcho appear in the names of so many capitalist groups? It is not, its because the similarities are so manifest.

P.S. Coming from someone who habitually emphasises random words its rich to have a dig because I used Caps to emphasise a few of my core statements.

I actually dont want strong state socialism. In case you forgot I want 'market socialism' because market socialism actually does allow a practical socialist economy to function with minimum state apparatus. I'm not actually likely to join a Stalinist group. But having said that if your biggest objections (in common with James) is that they distribute a paper, and expect recruits to show some commitment by actually putting in some effort, then I'd have to say this reveals rather a lot about the nature of YOUR actual commitment to anything.

Anarchist 'theory' is full of assertions and slogans and dogma. It is also absolutely riddled with functional holes and questions about how things could actually work. But just add in the capitalist ideas about property ownership and trade in them and voila it does work (and looks identical).

It is academic mind. Anarchism is never going to be more than an impotent minority movement anyway, it wont ever get the chance to mutate into anything because it will never be adopted.

[RyeN]

Although I may be younger than you scar but that makes me no less deticated to the cause than you. Ive been a Communist since 12. Although im sure i didnt understand it as I do know, perhaps you didnt understand it as I do at my age. Try using your wisdom to help out the younger generation and maybee we will have a chance.

About dedication to Communisum if your such a great contributor why arent we in a socialist state yet. I understand that its not a fair statment to put the weight of capitolism on your shoulders but Ive been learning every day how to lead. I also have a plan to do something and I hope that by the time im your age im not just talking about implementations but im actualy working the system.

I tell more people about communisum on a daily basis than the Mormons or Jehova witnesses do for thier like. If you are a Socialist i dont understand how you can be sypathetic for Capitolism what so ever. Its been holding us back for too long my freind too long.

[sc4r]

Well ryen I'll try and sum up the answers :

I said I'd been committed to Socialism longer than you have been alive. I did not say I was Socialism's equivalent of Alexander the Great. You apparrently see yourself as being this saviour. I dont see you in this way.

Why has Socialism not been instituted in the UK? Because it is difficult to get across to people who see their lifestyles as better than their parents or grandparents were (much better) that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the society they live in. Socialism is anyway not easy to explain in practical terms, and far too many people view it as a mixed mess of airy fairy nonsense in theory and totalitarian dictatorship in practise.

This view of theirs is not altered by people telling them 'how wonderful it would be if we all gave up possessions'.

Here is a stark fact - to gain significant support you must appeal to peoples self interest; you can make some headway by highlighting injustice to others, but only some. People will sign petitions demanding justice, they will give away small change , but ask them to give up anything of real significance and most will demur.

Probably this has been exascerbated by the daily bombardment we recieve telling us all to behave like this, emphasing materiality, and so on. But this really is a 'so what?' thing when talking about how to achieve change; because whether just or not its a fact. and its facts we have to deal with.

So you have to show them something which they can clearly see would work AND enhance their lives. Traditional Socialist and communist messages fail to do this.

This is why Socialist revolutions have always occurred in very poor and very highly stratified societies. In those places the prevailing conditions were so awful for most people that they could see any change as probably being for the better.

IF you want to campaign as the JWtnses do, go ahead. They dont achieve much, and you'll achieve less. What they have on their side is what we call in sales an 'urgent frightener' its a very powerful persuasion tool. They say 'ignore us and the consequences will be unbelieveably dreadful - for you, maybe tomorrow'. You dont have a credible threat of this sort to use.

****

What you seem to be calling Capitalism isn't. What you are talking about is 'liberal democracy'. This is essentially a compromise between a democratic social system and a capitalist economic one. It's a particular type of compromise of course, and it leads to particular problems not unconnected to the fact that accumulated money gives you accumulated influence too. This means you have disproportionate input into the democratic side, which means the accumulation is hastened. The longer it goes on the greater this tendency becomes.

When you factor in that a great many of the ordinary people within such a society are indirectly benefitting from the exploitation of others further away (in the third world), and are fed mindsets that allow them to ignore this, you have a very resilient self sustaining and self-reinforcing society.

To change it is hard. To change it without really understanding what it is, may be impossible. I'd suggest you need a hellava lot more learning before you will be in that position of understanding. And you wont get it by insulting the likes of me. I've better things to do than act as an unwanted mentor to people who will in the main grow up and join the status quo anyway.

***

You have probably never seen me say that I have sympathy for Capitalism. You saw in this thread me saying I have no sympathy for 'Anarchist' proposals. If you truly cannot see the chasm of difference between those two things, then you need to buld even the intellectual tools that allow understanding to grow, let alone work on understanding itself.

Attacking views people dont hold and demonising them for it is something you have learned both from politicians and from the likes of RS. It may win you a few debates, but it wont win you anything else (except BTW that it is an ideal skill for furthering your career under liberal democracy).

BUT as a matter of fact I do have SOME sympathy for true capitalists (and for liberal democrats, and for Communists, and for Anarchsists). I dont make the mistake of assuming that the adhereents of these things are invariably evil people; they are not. For the most part they all want societies which deliver justice and fairness to people. The trouble is that most of their proposals dont actually do this.

It's in their evaluations of what their proposals produce that they fail, not in their genuinely stated goals. Capitalism, for example, would work perfectly well at its inception, but it becomes less and less good over time because it has this accumulated wealth tendency built into it. This is bad in itself (according to me), but worse, leads to abuse (people can aquire enough accumalted power that they can ignore capitalist principles of non violence and non-coercion). Capitalist theory ignores this change over time feature, and also assumes that a capitalist will use surplus production to maximise future desired production (desired by those using the market) rather than to maximise selfish goals.

Capitalist theory , like Anarchist theory, will not not produce what it says it will. Thats the basic flaw, the theories are incomplete, simplified, and ignore aspects of reality. They are not good theories in other words. But few adherents really subject their own views to truly harsh investigation, and so they never see these flaws. As a consequence they quite genuinely see them as beneficial and even benevolent.

***

What I do on this board is try to use me accumulated 'wisdom' to inform and help others. But I'm not a saint, nor even a natural teacher, I dont pretend to be patient, or 'nice', or forgiving, I'm not.

I also learn from boards like this (Mao gave me something to think about in this thread, and Severian gave me something important in the 'market socialism thread).

But from people who react, as you did, with ridiculous and obviously inappropriate accusations because their naive views are questioned I can learn nothing and they distract me from intelligent communication. So I get Angry (a character flaw I'll admit).

No offence but I doubt you have 1/100th of the understanding I have of social systems and economic systems. These things are an intrinsic part of my job, and also , of course my passion. Dont excpect me to cheerfully act as a mentor to the unwilling and the petulant; I have no patience or time for that.

YOu'll find RS a more tolerant mentor. He will say what you want him to say. You'll learn nothing except dogma, but it may satisfy you. It seems to satisfy him to do this (why this should be I leave open, I'm not fooled that he actually does not see the contradictions in what he will say).

I'd be amazed if you dont see the above as me being an arrogant asshole with a superiority complex. Thats tough. I am Arrogant. I can be wrong, often have been, my ideas are not perfect. But in these matters I am essentially right. Certainly far more right than you are. Your ignorance of the substance of what you are talking about is as obvious as the nose on pinochios face.

Your heart is in the right place and if you allow your head to aquire enough wisdom to tell your heart that it cannot have exactly what it wants and explain why you'll maybe achieve something.

Do this by looking at what you are saying and subjecting them to a truly rigorous destruction test. If you dont know where the assumptions are (or if you have not found any weaknesses) then I can tell you you have simply not looked very hard. I know where the weaknesses are in my suggestions (yes there are some) and have answers to address these points. The fact that very very few people who attack me actually see the real weaknesses and focus on them speaks volumes for how well they understand what they are attacking.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 09:21 AM


Why has Socialism not been instituted in the UK? Because it is difficult to get across to people who see their lifestyles as better than their parents or grandparents were (much better) that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the society they live in. Socialism is anyway not easy to explain in practical terms, and far too many people view it as a mixed mess of airy fairy nonsense in theory and totalitarian dictatorship in practise.


That is true unfourtunatly.

[redstar2000]

What you are talking about is 'liberal democracy'. This is essentially a compromise between a democratic social system and a capitalist economic one.

Rubbish.

There is no "compromise". The capitalist class runs the show.

What do you gain by spreading this trash? Is it your hope that you can make the parliamentary road "to Socialism, Inc." more plausible with this "hint" that ordinary working people have some kind of "influence" on significant political questions?

Good luck with that one.


...people can acquire enough accumulated power that they can ignore capitalist principles of non-violence and non-coercion.

They can, can they?

How about they have and do and always have done?

How long would capitalism survive without its ever growing armies, police forces, private police forces, prison system, etc.?

Capitalist "principles" of "non-violence" and "non-coercion"? In your dreams, squire, in your dreams.


No offense but I doubt you have 1/100th of the understanding I have of social systems and economic systems. These things are an intrinsic part of my job...

Whenever someone tells you to accept their views on the grounds that "they know a lot more than you do" about the subject, be skeptical.

Don't just take their word for it; insist that they actually demonstrate that "superior" understanding.

Look at the two statements that I quoted at the beginning of this post. What do they suggest about the reformist's "understanding" of the nature of capitalism?

Does it really sound as if he "knows what he's talking about"?

Or does it sound like a hopeless muddle?

You decide.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Redstar you are a noisy source of extremist claims. Nothing else.

Do you think that lassez faire Capitalism* approves of (for example) welfare payments, Healthcare, taxation, etc. It does not. All you have to do to confirm this is read anything published by Lassez fairists.

All these benefit society in general. So we are left asking did society in general exercise some influence or are the 'capitalists', who according to you totaly and utterly run the show , nice benevolent people who do not believe in what they believe in.

To make all this worse you have actually published at least one lengthy missive explaining that the society we live in is liberal not Capitalist. Which means that either you have forgotten what you demanded to be taken as fact only 3 months ago, or that you are ignoring it because it is inconvenient for what you now wish to shout.

Either way you are trying to mislead people.

Get real. Find out what you are talking about rather than spouting ignorant bile. You are paranoid to an extreme degree and either very dishonest or very ignorant.







*Lassez faire capitalism for those who dont know is capitalism expressed as a full socio economic theory. It is what out and out Capitalists believe in.

[RyeN]

Never give up hope for Communisum. Sure things may apear to be better, or much better than they were for the generations before. However there actualy getting much worse. Smog from the American midwest comes up ever summer and polutes the air. Its not getting better. Although the american bastards ratified the kyoto accord, there still hasnt been any progress towards looking like there interested in what it says. I have to think about the future of this planet, and so does the rest of my generation.

Its not a hard fact to see that Capitolism, or Liberal Imperialism holds back far too much. They cloud everything with lies and decipt. Communism will be achived soon or if Communism is too pase a word we can call it something new. Use the same great ideas, and the sheep wont be any wiser.

[redstar2000]

Do you think that laissez faire Capitalism approves of (for example) welfare payments, Healthcare, taxation, etc. It does not. All you have to do to confirm this is read anything published by Laissez fairists.

All these benefit society in general. So we are left asking did society in general exercise some influence or are the 'capitalists', who according to you totally and utterly run the show , nice benevolent people who do not believe in what they believe in.

Neither one, squire, as well you know.

As long ago as the days of Otto von Bismarck, there were those in ruling circles who realized that occasional benevolence was "a good investment in the future". The difficulty with unregulated and unrestrained capitalism is precisely that it stimulates class struggle and deepens the rage of the working class. The periodic crises that dominate unregulated capitalism don't particularly appeal to capitalists either.

Thus a long interregnum of "welfare capitalism" and government regulation...in the interests of the capitalist class itself. Any actual benefits received by the workers were simply a tool to stifle discontent.

That interregnum ended with the Reagan administration in the United States and the Thatcher government in the U.K....and it's been downhill ever since.

But it should always be clearly understood that it is the capitalist class that decides such matters and that they do so in their own perceived self-interest.

It is never a matter of "nice capitalists" vs. "nasty capitalists"---it is always a matter of how nasty can we be at the present moment and get away with it.

And it's not the outcome of one of their ceremonial "elections" that concerns them.


To make all this worse you have actually published at least one lengthy missive explaining that the society we live in is liberal, not Capitalist.

Have I indeed? You understand that I'm an old man now and my memory is not what it once was. Since I don't remember ever doing such a thing, perhaps you can assist me with a link, or a title, or a thread...or some clue as to where this mysterious "document" might be found. :lol:

Or perhaps it is your own memory that has failed you?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Communism will be achieved soon or if Communism is too passé a word, we can call it something new. Use the same great ideas, and the sheep won't be any wiser.

No, communism will not be achieved "soon".

And working people are not "sheep" to be fooled by a change of name.

Communism is a conscious decision by the working class to take matters into their own hands.

And when that will happen is unknown at this time.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RyeN]

Yes, at least where I live. Socialism first and Communisum shortly there after.

Working people are fooled by Capitolism every day. Why not fool them into something better.

Unknow to those who have no vision for the future.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 12:18 PM

Do you think that laissez faire Capitalism approves of (for example) welfare payments, Healthcare, taxation, etc. It does not. All you have to do to confirm this is read anything published by Laissez fairists.

All these benefit society in general. So we are left asking did society in general exercise some influence or are the 'capitalists', who according to you totally and utterly run the show , nice benevolent people who do not believe in what they believe in.

Neither one, squire, as well you know.

As long ago as the days of Otto von Bismarck, there were those in ruling circles who realized that occasional benevolence was "a good investment in the future". The difficulty with unregulated and unrestrained capitalism is precisely that it stimulates class struggle and deepens the rage of the working class. The periodic crises that dominate unregulated capitalism don't particularly appeal to capitalists either.

Thus a long interregnum of "welfare capitalism" and government regulation...in the interests of the capitalist class itself. Any actual benefits received by the workers were simply a tool to stifle discontent.

That interregnum ended with the Reagan administration in the United States and the Thatcher government in the U.K....and it's been downhill ever since.

But it should always be clearly understood that it is the capitalist class that decides such matters and that they do so in their own perceived self-interest.

It is never a matter of "nice capitalists" vs. "nasty capitalists"---it is always a matter of how nasty can we be at the present moment and get away with it.

And it's not the outcome of one of their ceremonial "elections" that concerns them.


To make all this worse you have actually published at least one lengthy missive explaining that the society we live in is liberal, not Capitalist.

Have I indeed? You understand that I'm an old man now and my memory is not what it once was. Since I don't remember ever doing such a thing, perhaps you can assist me with a link, or a title, or a thread...or some clue as to where this mysterious "document" might be found. :lol:

Or perhaps it is your own memory that has failed you?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
No chum I'm not about to start hunting down old rubbish of yours.

You published that piece on liberalism both here, and on RGL, and probably numerous other places.

And as far as it went it was correct. The political system in force in the west is Liberal Democracy. Whether it is good or bad has nothing to do with it, thats what it is. You actually know this, and yet still you will make an issue of it when it suits whatever your current attack on individuals who are fellow socialist but not Redstarists. Despicable.

If you seriously believe that the opinions of voters have absolutely no bearing on legislation or policy you are stark staring mad. You are asking us to believe not that powerful people influence the opinions of the masses (they do), but that those opinions are completely and utterly ignored anyway. One might ask in that case just exactly why the 'ruling classes' bother to propagandise the opinon in the first place.

I notice that having oginally claimed we were living in a system of unrestrained capitalism; you are now (patiently) explaining to the person who corrected you that we are not. Yes matey, I know, its me that said so when you were saying the opposite (2 whole posts back), wake up.

Your term 'welfare capitalism' is just an invented one to cover up the fact that it is not actually standard capitalism, and you now see you cannot sustain that dumb claim; so what does RS do? THE SAME AS HE ALWAYS DOES, INVENT A NEW TERM WHICH MEANS THE SAME AS AN OLD ONE, OR CHANGE THE MEANING OF AN OLD ONE. CAPITALISM IS BY DEFINITION NOT CONCERNED WITH WELFARE.

It is urrelevant to thsi discussion why powerful people might promote welfare. The point here is that if they do so, they aint capitalists.

Your ideas are frankly incoherent. They hang together and make as much combined sense as a wastepaper basket full of XMAS cracker jokes would.

Your malicious and bitter attacks on just about everyone, combined with the disinformation and confusion you scatter do more to destroy the unity and the usefulness of this forum than everyone else combined (and that includes the rabid cappies in OI).

[crazy comie]

why does evrything turn to an r.s scar4and raf debate.

[redstar2000]

You published that piece on liberalism both here, and on RGL, and probably numerous other places.

Well, I have no memory of such a piece so I'll be polite and simply say you are mistaken.


The political system in force in the west is Liberal Democracy.

I certainly recall this disagreement. It's my view and has been since 1962 or thereabouts that bourgeois democracy is a better term...because it expresses clearly the class nature of "western democracy".


If you seriously believe that the opinions of voters have absolutely no bearing on legislation or policy you are stark staring mad. You are asking us to believe not that powerful people influence the opinions of the masses (they do), but that those opinions are completely and utterly ignored anyway. One might ask in that case just exactly why the 'ruling classes' bother to propagandise the opinion in the first place.

Because the ruling class does not fear the outcome of this or that electoral ritual...their fears run much deeper and the precautions they take--ideological as well as military--are motivated by those fears.

Professional politicians do pay a good deal of attention to voter opinions...before each election. Afterwards, they do as they're told by their real masters.


Your term 'welfare capitalism' is just an invented one to cover up the fact that it is not actually standard capitalism...

"Standard capitalism"? What the bloody hell are you talking about?

All capitalist societies have some residual dross left over from pre-capitalist societies. All capitalist societies have some measure of government regulation. All capitalist societies even have some minimal form of public relief.

I assumed you were making some reference to the U.S. (1933-1980), the U.K. (1945-1980), or what many of the continental European countries still have. And my point was that they were and are all capitalist countries.

That means countries where the ruling class decides.

Moreover, there is not and probably cannot be a "laboratory perfect" specimen of "pure capitalism"...is that what you mean by "standard capitalism"? Every capitalist country is a product of specific historical circumstances and so one is different from another in many trivial details.

But they are all capitalist.


It is irrelevant to this discussion why powerful people might promote welfare. The point here is that if they do so, they ain't capitalists.

So if a capitalist ruling class decides that it is in their long-run class interests to temporarily ease the intensity of exploitation of the working class, they have thereby ceased to be capitalists???

I'll say this, squire, just when I think that you've hit your personal nutball limit--"capitalism is a kind of anarchism"--you come right back and top it!

It boggles the mind!


Your malicious and bitter attacks on just about everyone, combined with the disinformation and confusion you scatter do more to destroy the unity and the usefulness of this forum than everyone else combined (and that includes the rabid cappies in OI).

I'm not even in your league, squire.

:redstar2000:

PS: crazy comie asks "why does everything turn into an rs, sc4r, and raf debate?"

The people who argue this stuff here are just an accident of history. It could be any three people. Before there was sc4r, for example, there was vox.

The arguments themselves reflect the political choices for the working class in the long run. These arguments are taking place on many boards as well as in "real life". They are about real differences.

Pay attention! It will be worth it.


"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

I will tell you exactly why.

because Redstar is a twat who annoys people who are trying to talk sensibly by distorting what they have said and advancing his own views of how terrible everybody except him is.

He talks as if he were an eductaed 13 yr old. And , of course, some of you younger people will find his twaddle appealing.

In this discussion he has now changed stance 3 times; each time proclaiming that his cureent stance is correct, and that THIS stance proves that 'the ruling class' are evil.

Its really up to readers to sort it out for themselves. I dont wish to bother arguing with RS about who said what and when. Its not terribly gern=maine to anythig imnportant.

Anyone want to bet that RS's ideas will still be very marginal in 100 years time? Couse they will be. Know Why? Coz they are unintelligent BS.

[crazy comie]

I think your probbably both half right

[sc4r]

I appreciate your attempt at diplomacy.

But quite seriously no we are not.

I'm actually saying RS is halfway right. He is demanding that he be acknowleged as all the way right, and furthermore insisting that I be regarded as a practically a traitor to socialism.

RS refuses to accept the judgememt of 'halfway right'. by doing so he makes himself 100% wrong.

It dont really matter. At the end of the day either we will convince enough genuine Socialists to join us in effective action, or we will not. RS mainly appeals to 'goody goody' teens. Most of those will change allegiance in a year or two anyway.

They, like him. are playing at it. He for his reasons; they for theirs.

They dont matter.

RS dont matter.

I dont matter.

But what does matter is that you adopt an approach to Socialism that might get the red flag flying free over a western nation. 25% right wont cut it.

May the road rise with you.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What you really have "for sale" is a "new" "improved" "revolutionary" brand of...class society, complete with a shiny new ruling class that will include both you and the reformist (if you can actually get him to sign up).



Which as we all know (and the hack convenienty ignores) is exactly what marx calls for during the socialist period.



Speaking of which, have you told him about the probationary period? You know, where he has to spend 40 hours a week standing on a street corner hawking the party's rag. What's it called, The Worker's Dissembler or something like that?



No, we stopped doing that in the eightees.


Face it man, you're just angry that there are members of this board that have exposed your rhetoric for what it is, self serving, bitter drivel. Have the redstaer disciples begun to shake to rooots clean hack? You seem to be losing more and more favour lately.

Damn Judases!

[redstar2000]

Ah, the Abbott & Costello of Che-Lives...


Face it man, you're just angry that there are members of this board that have exposed your rhetoric for what it is, self serving, bitter drivel.


RS mainly appeals to 'goody goody' teens. Most of those will change allegiance in a year or two anyway.

They, like him. are playing at it. He for his reasons; they for theirs.

Really "makes sense", doesn't it?

It's what in their circles passes for serious political discussion.

Stop laughing! It's true!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

i think pepole should stop slinging personal attacks at each other and get on with the disscusion. i think the biggest cullprits are rs and raf.