indivdualism

[freedomist6]

what is your opinion.

[GPDP]

I... like it?

[TheGeekySocialist]

it's fine so long as people do not forget that they are part of society and the species as a whole and so long as people do not put personal gain above the well being of others.

[Rafiq]

A romanticized Bourgeois concept, that of which has nothing to do with the interests of the working class as a whole.

[DinodudeEpic]

Individualism is what constitutes my socialist political views. Socialism is merely the liberation of the individual worker from his oppressors. It allows the human being to be self reliant. So, I have very high opinions of individualism.

[Rafiq]

Individualism is what constitutes my socialist political views. Socialism is merely the liberation of the individual worker from his oppressors. It allows the human being to be self reliant. So, I have very high opinions of individualism.

Ah, the words of a true, Idealist-Moralist Bourgeois Socialist.

I'm sorry. I really distaste users such as yourself.

Socialism is the movement(Or was) that represents(or did represent) the interests of the Proletariat. In other words, yes, Socialism is not love, it is the hammer we (The workers) use to crush the (class) enemy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A romanticized Bourgeois concept, that of which has nothing to do with the interests of the working class as a whole.

I'm pretty sure that "individualism" has been around before the creation of romanticized bourgeois concepts.

[Rafiq]

Communism has existed before the word Proletarian even came out of the tongue of a Human being.

That doesn't mean anything, as the usage has/will always changed through the course of history.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So embracing the fact that you're a unique individual is suddenly reactionary in the present era? Shirking tradition, conformity etc? That's a bad thing?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Socialism is merely the liberation of the individual worker from his oppressors. It allows the human being to be self reliant.

Socialism is the liberation from class of the collective.

No human should be self-reliant and the only way to be truly self-reliant is to run into the woods and make sure you're somewhere far from any other human thing, forever, and this is both undesirable and idealistic nonsense. The human collective reliance on one another should be strengthened, for a true coöperation, not weakened.

[Révolutionnaire Acadien]

Being an individual is what makes us human, what separates us from all other life forms. "Cogito ergo sum" I think therefore I am. Humans have the ability of free will, we can choose to do our own thing. Animals can only do what they are designed to do. Being individuals, it grants us the ability to understand that we can better ourselves through cooperation with others using our own, special, individual talents, to benefit humankind as a whole. "From each according to his ability" we all have our own individual abilities, "to each according to his need" and we can use those unique talents to benefit ourselves and society as a whole. I don't think we don't need to be mindless automatons to be good Socialists. Depriving an individual of his uniqueness is depriving him of his will, his freedom. That's what Fascists do, not us.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No human should be self-reliant and the only way to be truly self-reliant is to run into the woods and make sure you're somewhere far from any other human thing, forever, and this is both undesirable and idealistic nonsense. The human collective reliance on one another should be strengthened, for a true coöperation, not weakened.

Self-reliance and egoism/individualism are not the same thing.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Self-reliance and egoism/individualism are not the same thing.

I was not the one who brought up self-reliance, it was DinoDude that used that term. I was responding thereto. They are not really the same, but they are peripherally related; i.e. individualism promotes self-reliance and desires of individual self-reliance grows out of individualist thought and mentality; and they are both objectionable.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's nothing really wrong with someone having an interest in being, or being (although in this day in age it's extremely difficult) self-reliant.

[HEAD ICE]

the only way people can achieve their true individual potential is by establishing a true human community

[HEAD ICE]

the only way people can achieve their true individual potential is by establishing a true human community

wow that's deep. repped.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Did you learn that from the teachings of Marshall Applewhite?

[Tenka]

There's nothing really wrong with someone having an interest in being, or being (although in this day in age it's extremely difficult) self-reliant.
The bourgeois ideological prescription to the proletariat is always telling us to be self-reliant, to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and compete with each other as individuals, etcetera. It's divisive; today, making self-reliance some sort of principal only helps the bourgeoisie (and encourages them with their "austerity measures" and the like, really).
Socialism, being necessarily global, would have us even more interconnected than we are today. It would be hard to be truly self-reliant, just as it is now, just as it's been since primitive societies developed; though reality could never get in the way of these fanciful notions of self-reliance.
Species coöperates because individual members are weak, and not due to some individual "understanding that we can better ourselves through coöperation" that is unique to humans, as someone above has suggested.

[RGacky3]

Depends what you mean by individualism ... Its a meaningless word really, individualism in what sense?

Generally individualism makes sense, in individual matters, trying to apply it to social/economic matters does'nt work.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The bourgeois ideological prescription to the proletariat is always telling us to be self-reliant

Wait, who is the bourgeois? Glenn Beck? I haven't noticed this propaganda blitz at all. In fact the dominant idea seems to be reminding people constantly of their role in an interlocking national economy (esp. if you're unemployed), and the importance of consumption. Neither of which has much to do with self-reliance, obviously.

[tbasherizer]

I'm a very strong individualist. For example, the proletariat doesn't exist as a literal entity. The majority of society are individuals who have to work to live and are alienated from the means of production under capitalism, but there is no entity called 'the proletariat' to emancipate. The emancipation of the working class is the emancipation of the individuals of whom it comprises.

To spout nonsense about what people should or shouldn't do to support 'the collective' is voluntarist pseudo-science. Society is defined by the sum of its individuals' actions and contributions. Furthermore, it is maintained by the constructive direction of self-interest. Socialism and Communism constitute a shift in the way every individual finds their own fulfillment brought about by cumulative changes in the means of production.

From an organizational point of view, no amount of agitation or education will make people join or support you if you preach about the glorious future of subjugation to an abstract concept. The Bolsheviks were only successful because their programme represented for workers first an immediate relief from their own misery and second because of the bright sun of freedom for all. Workers in the soviets didn't by any means look forward to making a noble sacrifice for their class, but to being the driving force behind change that they hoped would bring about a better society.

[Agent Equality]

it is fine but you need to know where to draw the line. Do not lose yourself as a person but do not glorify yourself either. its okay to think you're special. But you also then have to realize that if you're special, everyone else is special too. And then where does that leave you? Its nice, but its not too nice. Equality, fairness, and freedom of all individuals are more important than trying to distance yourself from everyone else.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the OP needs to be more specific because there is individualism in the sense that people are all individuals and then there is a sort of bullshit political concept (more of a US libertarian fad) of "individualism" being the opposite of "collectivism".

Capitalism isn't an "individualistic" system despite what Ayn Randite internet trolls say. Production and labor is collectivized generally under capitalism, labor is de-skilled and made repetitive and interchangeable. It is also alienated labor and while the labor effort is collective, the control and reward is individual. Socialism doesn't change an "individualistic system" to a collective one, it changes a collective system into a democratically run collective system.

Peasant production is actually atomized and idnduvidual because families work their plots of land and exploitation happens through the Lord just taking a cut of what they produce or directly taking some of their labor.

As for socialism and the individual - a democratic worker's society would free us from rule by our bosses and make our individual labor non-alienated. We'd have a say in production at work and in how our communities should be organized and so our individual power would be greatly expanded.

A communist society would free all individuals - this is how people lived for a long time before class society, "primitive communism". The only restrictions were set by nature and scarcity so people living in small bands were much more appreciated as individuals. Even with some early class elements in place, individuality was valued and respected much more than in more developed class societies. In modern society, if you can not work, then you are essentially thrown away unless reforms have been won to protect people. In the US, schizophrenics, manic-depressives, PTSD vets, the handicapped poor, elderly, drug addicts make up much of the chronic homeless. In tribal bands, schizophrenics were given food to eat and became the story-tellers or shaman... to each according to their needs (i.e. these people were given help and food and shelter just like everyone else in the band) from each according to their abilities (while they were not able to have the focus to be good hunters or makers of things, their unique ways of seeing things, were valued).

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm a very strong individualist. For example, the proletariat doesn't exist as a literal entity. The majority of society are individuals who have to work to live and are alienated from the means of production under capitalism, but there is no entity called 'the proletariat' to emancipate. The emancipation of the working class is the emancipation of the individuals of whom it comprises.

Thank you for illustrating Rafiq's point.

[cogar66]

Society is defined by the sum of its individuals' actions and contributions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

It's the other way around. Individuals are born into social relations which help define who and what they are.



For example, the proletariat doesn't exist as a literal entity.
An individual human being is a collectivist construct, all that REALLY exists is matter, everything else is just an aggregate of the human mind. Therefore it's unimportant, right?

Essentially, you set your base at one human(a collective of cells, tissues, organs and matter) and then say that society doesn't exist. I could set the base at leaves and say a tree doesn't exist, or I could set it at one tree and say that a forest doesn't exist. I could set my base at matter and say that human beings don't exist. It's all relative.

[Tomhet]

Individualism fails to realize that the individual is ultimately connected to society, that being said I think I'm pretty rad..

[DinodudeEpic]

I was not the one who brought up self-reliance, it was DinoDude that used that term. I was responding thereto. They are not really the same, but they are peripherally related; i.e. individualism promotes self-reliance and desires of individual self-reliance grows out of individualist thought and mentality; and they are both objectionable.

I meant self-reliance from authority, aka corporations, a undemocratic state, and other such organizations. Not total economic self-reliance from society. I want the workers to own themselves. That's what I meant with self-reliance.

Social status doesn't really actually effect the interests of an individual. (I made an entire post about how the majority of early Socialists were born middle class or even nobility.)

[Red And Black Sabot]

I love it and keep it pretty central to what informs my politics. I dont see a dicotomy between the individual and the social. They are inseperable and dependant on each other. Social emancipation is dependant on the autonomy granted to the individual by the social. Communism is the only system I believe will actualize a true individuality. (Little c communism. Capitalized simply because of its place in the sentence)

[Rafiq]

So embracing the fact that you're a unique individual is suddenly reactionary in the present era?

Individualism is to the Bourgeoisie as Communism is to the proletariat.

If you want to feel special or whatever then go ahead, but keep it out of the affairs of the revolutionary movement.

[RGacky3]

Individualism is not what communism is, there is no connection.

Capitalism is the the bourgeoisie as communism is to the proletariat.

Individualism is meaningless without context.

[Rafiq]

Capitalism isn't an idealogy.

Individualism is.

[Tatarin]

It all of course depends on one's definition of "individualism". For instance, a human being needs a mother and a father to be created, someone to feed it until at least 5 years of age. Then - and mind that I'm talking at the complete basic, i.e. humans living in the "woods" - someone to teach the child to get food (fishing, hunting etc). To increase the chances of survival, other abilities need to be learnt - building shelter, what plants to eat when feeling sick, and so on. So obviously no individual can really be completely "individualistic".

[black magick hustla]

"Too many corpses strew the paths of individualism and collectivism. Under two apparently contradictory rationalities has raged an identical gangsterism, an identical oppression of the isolated man. The hand which smothered Lautréamont returned to strangle Serge Yesenin; one died in the lodging house of his landlord Jules-Françoise Dupuis, the other hung himself in a nationalized hotel. Everywhere the law is verified: "There is no weapon of your individual will which, once appropriated by others, does not turn against you." If anyone says or writes that practical reason must henceforth be based upon the rights of the individual and the individual alone, he invalidates his own proposition if he doesn't invite his audience to make this statement true for themselves. Such a proof can only be lived, grasped from the inside. That is why everything in the notes which follow should be tested and corrected by the immediate experience of everyone. Nothing is so valuable that it need not be started afresh, nothing is so rich that it need not be enriched constantly.
"

[RGacky3]

Capitalism isn't an idealogy.

Individualism is.


No its not, it depends on the context your using it, for example some poeple are individualistic socially, some people have an ideology of economic individualism (which makes no sense because economic activity is by definition social), some people are culturally individualistic.

[Nehru]

Individualism is the most important thing in the world. Without it, life is not worth living. Sacrificing it at the altar of 'greater good' is what leaders want their followers to do - and followers do it faithfully.

[Rafiq]

No its not, it depends on the context your using it, for example some poeple are individualistic socially, some people have an ideology of economic individualism (which makes no sense because economic activity is by definition social), some people are culturally individualistic.


Individualism is economic. Deciding to be a loner does not fall in the catagory

[Rafiq]

Individualism is the most important thing in the world. Without it, life is not worth living. Sacrificing it at the altar of 'greater good' is what leaders want their followers to do - and followers do it faithfully.



Please get out.

[Thirsty Crow]

Individualism is economic. Deciding to be a loner does not fall in the catagory
Not every discourse that takes on the term, as a self designating "device" or by designation made by other people, refers to the economic. It's quite foolish to think that this is common sense and that everybody understands the term in such a way. In fact, this error is what makes the whole of this thread a gigantic mess.

[RGacky3]

Individualism is economic. Deciding to be a loner does not fall in the catagory


There is NO economic ideology called individualism.

[Nehru]

Lack of individualism is the reason why people believe that they're members of certain nations/ethnic groups instead of regarding themselves (and by extension, others) as unique beings capable of original thought and action. This lack of individualism leads to stereotyping, generalizing etc., and this in turn leads to bigotry, racism, and what have you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Please get out.Make your argument comrade, but these kinds of posts are unproductive and don't help the debate or proving your point.

[Rafiq]

Make your argument comrade, but these kinds of posts are unproductive and don't help the debate or proving your point.

He said individualism is the most important thing in the world. While I realize my post was unproductive (as I apologize for such), it must be noted that such a statement is ridiculous to the point where debunking or arguing with it would be the same as someone saying that the most important thing in the world is Wearing a certain type of trousers.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Individualism is to the Bourgeoisie as Communism is to the proletariat.

If you want to feel special or whatever then go ahead, but keep it out of the affairs of the revolutionary movement.

There's a Bertrand Russell quote somewhere out there (too lazy to go look for it) where he says that, essentially, the main question of human society ultimately boils down to finding a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective. So no, I don't think that the question of individualism can simply be brushed aside so easily.

I look at it like this: reality as I perceive it may as well be objective reality (although of course there are many things that I can't control). Why shouldn't I manipulate, backstab, exploit and generally utilize my privilege to get to the top? Why shouldn't I carve out a niche for myself in this world, and to hell with everyone else? The supposed immorality of doing this doesn't affect me, as my materialism, atheism and general lack of belief in an objective morality leaves no barriers.

But I don't feel that way, and I'd rather that many other people progress with me, and the only effective way to accomplish goals is through organized collective action. The people who argue that there is no such thing as "society" or class and only individuals are wrong; the molecular structure of an object is made of many tiny building blocks, for example, but it's the sum of these that give it it's form and function. So no, I don't feel that my beliefs coincide with the propagandists for "vulgar individualism".

The communist project, I believe, is ultimately one based on the self-interest of individuals, and not some kind of sacrificing altruistic movement, based on a glorified collective hivemind. Like I said before, I don't feel that the issue of individualism and the rights of the individual should be tossed aside glibbly, they deserve serious consideration, it's an issue I wrestle with often. If the collective dictates that they need to harvest one of my eyeballs so that a blind person can have an eye, and they're going to institute and eyeball lottery among the general population for this purpose, that seems like a gross overreach and invasion of individual autonomy (before you say that's a ridiculous example, it's actually one used by a Marxist, G.A. Cohen). Leftist arguments regarding abortion are also couched in the language of invasions of individual perogative and privacy, etc.

[Comrade Anarchist]

It is individualism that allows for communists to exist along side anarchists alongside etc, because we are all separate individuals we can think about and act as we see personally see fit in a free society, (which we obviously don't have today). People who wish to constrain individualism to society want only its destruction because individualism is of the individual to make it responsible to society is to undermine it and ultimately destroy it because then society is deciding for you. Our goal shouldn't be to strengthen society over individual or to make the individual accountable to society. Our end goal should be to do away with society and its constraints and instead allow individuals to be totally unhindered and accountable only to themselves.

[Bud Struggle]

There's a Bertrand Russell quote somewhere out there (too lazy to go look for it) where he says that, essentially, the main question of human society ultimately boils down to finding a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective. So no, I don't think that the question of individualism can simply be brushed aside so easily. The problem Capitalism has is that while it may SEEM to be more individualistc--that individualism is really only reserved for the very few at the top of the food chain. There's not much difference in being a prolearian in a Capitalist society and a proletarian (wose case here) Soviet society. The consumerism may be higher in the Capitalist society--but the opportunities for actual individual freedom aren't much different.


I look at it like this: reality as I perceive it may as well be objective reality (although of course there are many things that I can't control). Why shouldn't I manipulate, backstab, exploit and generally utilize my privilege to get to the top? Why shouldn't I carve out a niche for myself in this world, and to hell with everyone else? The supposed immorality of doing this doesn't affect me, as my materialism, atheism and general lack of belief in an objective morality leaves no barriers. Of course all that is subjective. Lots of people build businesses that aren't designed o exploit and manipulate--and if you don't believe in Marxian ideas like surplus value then there really isn't a problem with being a Capitalist.


Our goal shouldn't be to strengthen society over individual or to make the individual accountable to society. Our end goal should be to do away with society and its constraints and instead allow individuals to be totally unhindered and accountable only to themselves. That's Laissez Faire Capitalism! :)

[RGacky3]

The problem Capitalism has is that while it may SEEM to be more individualistc--that individualism is really only reserved for the very few at the top of the food chain. There's not much difference in being a prolearian in a Capitalist society and a proletarian (wose case here) Soviet society. The consumerism may be higher in the Capitalist society--but the opportunities for actual individual freedom aren't much different.


:thumbup1:


That's Laissez Faire Capitalism! http://www.revleft.com/vb/indivdualism-t160844/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

No its not because even laissez faire Capitalism, infact any form of Capitalism, requires a state and enforcement of laws designed to take away the individual freedom of some, laissez faire Capitalism refers almost always to things like opening markets, but very rarely opening boarders (opening labor markets), it refers to defending property laws, but not defending workers rights, its not capitalism at all, because it ends up making most of the population accountable to a few unaccountable people.

[Bud Struggle]

No its not because even laissez faire Capitalism, infact any form of Capitalism, requires a state and enforcement of laws designed to take away the individual freedom of some, laissez faire Capitalism refers almost always to things like opening markets, but very rarely opening boarders (opening labor markets), it refers to defending property laws, but not defending workers rights, its not capitalism at all, because it ends up making most of the population accountable to a few unaccountable people.

You don't need a state to be capitalist. I could be quite a good Capitalist without any government interventions. It's the state that (in a limited way) that defends the Proletarian. Without a central government--I could form a corporation that could take over everything--and do it quite easily.

On another note--nothing was more Capitalistic and hierarchical than people like Pirates--and they ran outside the government--same with organized crime.

[Hit The North]

You don't need a state to be capitalist. I could be quite a good Capitalist without any government interventions. It's the state that (in a limited way) that defends the Proletarian. Without a central government--I could form a corporation that could take over everything--and do it quite easily.



And without a state I could walk in and kill you and take over your means of production. Without a state I could break into your store and take what I want and beat you if you resisted.

The role of the state is to regulate and enforce the property relations that make capitalism possible. So whilst it might sometimes defend proletarians against excesses, it still serves up the proletarian as a wage slave to capital.


On another note--nothing was more Capitalistic and hierarchical than people like Pirates--and they ran outside the government--same with organized crime.


I think pirates tended to be less hierarchical than national navies. And besides they were very poor at making use of their wealth to create more wealth - the hallmark of a true capitalist. All that unreliably buried treasure strung across a series of desert islands doesn't tend to accrue much interest.

[Bud Struggle]

And without a state I could walk in and kill you and take over your means of production. Without a state I could break into your store and take what I want and beat you if you resisted.

The role of the state is to regulate and enforce the property relations that make capitalism possible. So whilst it might sometimes defend proletarians against excesses, it still serves up the proletarian as a wage slave to capital. I don't need the state to protect my private property. It's easy enough to hire people privately to do that job. They could do it better and with less fuss than the state. I could do better without the state when it comes to business--


I think pirates tended to be less hierarchical than national navies. And besides they were very poor at making use of their wealth to create more wealth - the hallmark of a true capitalist. All that unreliably buried treasure strung across a series of desert islands doesn't tend to accrue much interest. I'll grant you--they were a bad example. :hammersickle:

[Hit The North]

I don't need the state to protect my private property. It's easy enough to hire people privately to do that job.


Sure, but why take on that financial burden when the state will do it for you. And, anyway, without a state what would be the guarantee that it was your private property?

Meanwhile, without courts and legislation, how will you administer "justice"?

If a buyer reneges on a deal, what are going to do? Send the boys around to break his legs?

You'd be little better than a mob boss and constantly in fear of rival mob bosses as well as those who you exploit and oppress "offing" you.

Face it, if capitalism could thrive without political states, it would have done so by now.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure, but why take on that financial burden when the state will do it for you. And, anyway, without a state what would be the guarantee that it was your private property?

Meanwhile, without courts and legislation, how will you administer "justice"?

If a buyer reneges on a deal, what are going to do? Send the boys around to break his legs?

You'd be little better than a mob boss and constantly in fear of rival mob bosses as well as those who you exploit and oppress "offing" you.

Face it, if capitalism could thrive without political states, it would have done so by now.

Oh, I agree the state good in some ways--but it's not necessary to me gaining capital and having a happy Bourgeois life.

[Hit The North]

Oh, I agree the state good in some ways--but it's not necessary to me gaining capital and having a happy Bourgeois life.

No, it's essential. Think about it: without political states, how could you regulate your capital? Where would be the guarantee of a particular currency? How would you be able to exchange your commodities and expand your capital?

[RGacky3]

I don't need the state to protect my private property. It's easy enough to hire people privately to do that job. They could do it better and with less fuss than the state. I could do better without the state when it comes to business--


Yes, and then you'd have a dark ages society, and you'd essencially have small dictatorships, also without the state you'd have no security, no one would do buisiness out of fear, capitalism simply would'nt function, what your talking about is Somalia.


Oh, I agree the state good in some ways--but it's not necessary to me gaining capital and having a happy Bourgeois life.

The best you could do without the state is be a somalian warlord with a most likely very short life span.


You don't need a state to be capitalist. I could be quite a good Capitalist without any government interventions. It's the state that (in a limited way) that defends the Proletarian. Without a central government--I could form a corporation that could take over everything--and do it quite easily.


No you could'nt because corporations are state created entities :D.


On another note--nothing was more Capitalistic and hierarchical than people like Pirates--and they ran outside the government--same with organized crime.

Not really, the Pirates (unlike organized crime), had a very democratic society and a very democratic distribution of wealth, if anything they were anarchist socialists.

Organized Crime on the other hands works differently, mainly due to the fact that it interacts with Capitalism and profits by exploiting flaws in it, for example, you have property rights, but if the state cannot protect them well enough you have organized crime that comes in.

Thats not the same as piracy.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, and then you'd have a dark ages society, and you'd essencially have small dictatorships, also without the state you'd have no security, no one would do buisiness out of fear, capitalism simply would'nt function, what your talking about is Somalia. But that is ANY Anarchism. As I've been reading about the Spanish Civil War--that is very close to what life was in Spain at the time. It wasn't all happy times. It was armed melitias carring out the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Six of one half doz of another.


No you could'nt because corporations are state created entities :D. Now they are. That doesn't always need to be the case.


Not really, the Pirates (unlike organized crime), had a very democratic society and a very democratic... I agree that pirates wasn't the best example.


Organized Crime on the other hands works differently, mainly due to the fact that it interacts with Capitalism and profits by exploiting flaws in it, for example, you have property rights, but if the state cannot protect them well enough you have organized crime that comes in. Sure and it works the same in Socalist societies--the Black Market. And the problem has historically been worse in places like Cuba. I think no matter what the economic system--there will always be room for an entrepreneaur. Which is just fine with me. :)

[RGacky3]

But that is ANY Anarchism. As I've been reading about the Spanish Civil War--that is very close to what life was in Spain at the time. It wasn't all happy times. It was armed melitias carring out the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Six of one half doz of another.


Much much much difference between anarchist spain and somalia, and I'm betting eveyone would rather be in anarchist spain.


Now they are. That doesn't always need to be the case.


Well they always have been, and basically it would need to be otherwise no one needs to ever recognize your corporation as such.


Sure and it works the same in Socalist societies--the Black Market. And the problem has historically been worse in places like Cuba. I think no matter what the economic system--there will always be room for an entrepreneaur. Which is just fine with me. http://www.revleft.com/vb/indivdualism-t160844/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Of coarse, because Cuba and the USSR have state capitalist systems, why would'nt you have a black market? A undemocratic state running the economy is not socialism at all.

[Bud Struggle]

Much much much difference between anarchist spain and somalia, and I'm betting eveyone would rather be in anarchist spain. Varying degrees of the same thing. I can't see Anarchy--even with the very best intentions--not breaking down into chaos.


Well they always have been, and basically it would need to be otherwise no one needs to ever recognize your corporation as such. Well you can say in that respect that feudal society was just corporate society in a basic state. A "lord" was nothing more than a sole proprietorship. If he sold "shares" in his lordship--he'd be a corporation.


Of coarse, because Cuba and the USSR have state capitalist systems, why would'nt you have a black market? A undemocratic state running the economy is not socialism at all.No it isn't. But democracy is a very vague term--something like the CNT's use of "consensus" could be democracy--or mob rule or a million other things, some of them far worse.

I never see real democracy happening--because there is no such thing. So there will always be a Black Market of some sort.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Ah, the words of a true, Idealist-Moralist Bourgeois Socialist.

I'm sorry. I really distaste users such as yourself.

Socialism is the movement(Or was) that represents(or did represent) the interests of the Proletariat. In other words, yes, Socialism is not love, it is the hammer we (The workers) use to crush the (class) enemy.

jeez your hard mate

Also apologises if your just trolling here

[Bud Struggle]

No, it's essential. Think about it: without political states, how could you regulate your capital? Where would be the guarantee of a particular currency? How would you be able to exchange your commodities and expand your capital?

I don't think it matters. It's about having it all. The real end of Capitalism is Feudalism. It is owning and controling everything.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

There's a Bertrand Russell quote somewhere out there (too lazy to go look for it) where he says that, essentially, the main question of human society ultimately boils down to finding a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective. So no, I don't think that the question of individualism can simply be brushed aside so easily.

I've always found this idea wierd, because surely one man's individualism can be another tyranny? Surely one one man's individualism is, if opposed by the "collective", also in oppositing to the indivdualism of those individuals that comprise the collective?

I thought this was marx's point when he said something like, "the freedom of every person, shall be the freedom of all? "That in capitalism we have a system where the individual benefit of one is possibly hurting the individual lives of others, and communism seeks to make it so that this, on a systemtemic level, doesn't happen.

[RGacky3]

Varying degrees of the same thing. I can't see Anarchy--even with the very best intentions--not breaking down into chaos.


No its not Varying degrees of the same thing, its not even close to the same thing.

Anarchist Spain never did break down into chaos, infact it worked better than the non anarchist spain.

Facts don't lie bud.


Well you can say in that respect that feudal society was just corporate society in a basic state. A "lord" was nothing more than a sole proprietorship. If he sold "shares" in his lordship--he'd be a corporation.


Except he never did sell shares in his lordship because he could'nt, there was no mechanism to do so, corporations require a state backed security, other wise your juts selling pieces of paper that have no significance.


No it isn't. But democracy is a very vague term--something like the CNT's use of "consensus" could be democracy--or mob rule or a million other things, some of them far worse.

I never see real democracy happening--because there is no such thing. So there will always be a Black Market of some sort.

Well you may never see democracy happening, but the examples of black markets were not in democratic societies, so it really does'nt count does it.

Democracy is not a vague term at all, it basically means that the people effected by something get to decided that something.

[Bud Struggle]

No its not Varying degrees of the same thing, its not even close to the same thing.

Anarchist Spain never did break down into chaos, infact it worked better than the non anarchist spain.

Facts don't lie bud. There's no big anarchist movement in Spain. Lots of old folks. The UGT is happening--if anything is happening at all.




Except he never did sell shares in his lordship because he could'nt, there was no mechanism to do so, corporations require a state backed security, other wise your juts selling pieces of paper that have no significance. Yea--the selling shares in "lordship" is exactly what Capitalism is all about.


Well you may never see democracy happening, but the examples of black markets were not in democratic societies, so it really does'nt count does it. There never were "Democratic societies." It's a myth. Just like anarchism.

gack--Visit Spain, no one even remembers.


Democracy is not a vague term at all, it basically means that the people effected by something get to decided that something. Show me.

[Hit The North]

I don't think it matters. It's about having it all. The real end of Capitalism is Feudalism. It is owning and controling everything.

You've stopped making sense.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh, I agree the state good in some ways--but it's not necessary to me gaining capital and having a happy Bourgeois life.

The business climate in the USA today was only made possible originally by massive tariffs (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm) and protectionism by the state.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also,


Lots of people build businesses that aren't designed o exploit and manipulate

I think you kind of missed the point I was trying to make. It wasn't really a point about capitalism.


I've always found this idea wierd, because surely one man's individualism can be another tyranny?

Yes, and surely the supposed collective will has often been used for the personal enrichment of a select few individuals? Most nation-states today appeal to the idea of "the people" for legitimacy, even brutal kleptocracies.


I thought this was marx's point when he said something like, "the freedom of every person, shall be the freedom of all?

This would be convenient, i.e. collective freedom = individual freedom, but I think the truth is more complicated. Bakunin makes some interesting points regarding this in "Three Lectures To Swiss Members" when discussing Gracchus Babeuf, who "knew the creed of equality, even to the detriment of freedom".

[RGacky3]

There's no big anarchist movement in Spain. Lots of old folks. The UGT is happening--if anything is happening at all.


I take it you did'nt see the indignados protest, I was there, a big ass crowd.

You don't know what your talking about.


Yea--the selling shares in "lordship" is exactly what Capitalism is all about.


Sure, you you did'nt reply to what I said, you need a state to have corporations.


There never were "Democratic societies." It's a myth. Just like anarchism.

gack--Visit Spain, no one even remembers.

There are more democratic societies and there are less democratic societies, people in spain arn't thinking about the 30s, nor should they be, I just use that as an example to show that it can work and that all the horror stories that capitalists say will happen don't happen.

What Spain is thinking about now is the disaster that capitalism caused for them.


Show me.

Show you what?