Who are the top 0.1%

[RGacky3]

http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/BakijaColeHeimJobsIncomeGrowthTopEarners.pdf

They are 40.8% executives and managers in non-finance corporations (28% executives, and 12.3% managers/supervisors)
18.4% in finance

6.2% layers, 4.7% real estate, 6.3% not working (or dead between the time of the tax return and the time of the survey collected), then you have some other categories, like technical/enginerring, medical and so on.

Also we need to understand, the top 0.1% get half of all capital gains (http://rt.com/usa/news/percent-half-capital-gains-887/).

I think its better personally to look at the top 0.05% or even the 0.01% as these are the real controlers of the United States.

Now let me ask you pro-Capitalists, did executives suddenly because extremely more productive? Did those in the financial industry suddenly produce THAT much more value?

[Yazman]

Interesting stats. Didn't expect to see a high percentage from real estate.

I am curious to see how pro-capitalists could justify these statistics.

[Baseball]

http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/BakijaColeHeimJobsIncomeGrowthTopEarners.pdf

They are 40.8% executives and managers in non-finance corporations (28% executives, and 12.3% managers/supervisors)
18.4% in finance

6.2% layers, 4.7% real estate, 6.3% not working (or dead between the time of the tax return and the time of the survey collected), then you have some other categories, like technical/enginerring, medical and so on.

Also we need to understand, the top 0.1% get half of all capital gains (http://rt.com/usa/news/percent-half-capital-gains-887/).

I think its better personally to look at the top 0.05% or even the 0.01% as these are the real controlers of the United States.

Now let me ask you pro-Capitalists, did executives suddenly because extremely more productive? Did those in the financial industry suddenly produce THAT much more value?

Most people in the top 1% at any given time are there only briefly- the sale of a house could put somebody into that category.

Unless there is too be perfect income equality, there will always be a top 1%.

[DinodudeEpic]

That's not a problem. A top 1% will always exist as long as income exists.

The problem is their POWER over the wealth, economy, and thus politics of society. And, the huge DIFFERENCE of wealth between the 99.9% and the 0.1%. Which contributes a lot to the power of the latter.

Power corrupts, whether the state has the power or the corporate executives have the power. Thus, we must find a way to take away power from the corporate executives. (Who are pretty much controlling the state in favor of their ideas, market conservative ideas....)

Also, class mobility is actually smaller in the US then in most European countries.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

top .1 (ten) percent? or top .01 (one) percent?

Not trying to troll, honestly just confused.

[DinodudeEpic]

top .1 (ten) percent? or top .01 (one) percent?

Not trying to troll, honestly just confused.


0.1%, made a typo.

[Nox]

top .1 (ten) percent? or top .01 (one) percent?

Not trying to troll, honestly just confused.

0.1% isn't 10% ;) It's 1/10th of a percent.

That's right - half of America's wealth, owned by 1/10th of a percent.

[Kingpin]

Who can explain how an executive deserves millions of dollars in bonuses after bankrupting his company.

[RGacky3]

Most people in the top 1% at any given time are there only briefly- the sale of a house could put somebody into that category.

Unless there is too be perfect income equality, there will always be a top 1%.

I'm gonna call bullshit on your first statement, I'd say most people in the top 1% stay there, and especially the top 0.1%.

As for your second statement sure, but not a 1% that controls 40% of the countries wealth.

[Rafiq]

The problem is their POWER over the wealth, economy, and thus politics of society. And, the huge DIFFERENCE of wealth between the 99.9% and the 0.1%. Which contributes a lot to the power of the latter.

Power corrupts, whether the state has the power or the corporate executives have the power. Thus, we must find a way to take away power from the corporate executives. (Who are pretty much controlling the state in favor of their ideas, market conservative ideas....)

Also, class mobility is actually smaller in the US then in most European countries.

More bourgeois ideology, I presume?

Do you think power will not exist in a socialist mode of production? It will.

And the power the proletariat will have over the class enemy will be more unstoppable and powerful then Bourgeois dictatorship.

Power does not corrupt, as nothing truly "corrupts". For something to corrupt means that there was an imparity from start.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

0.1% isn't 10% ;) It's 1/10th of a percent.

That's right - half of America's wealth, owned by 1/10th of a percent.

:mad:

I thought it was 1 percent. Not 1/10th of a percent.


Crap, we gotta get on this. Somebody resurrect che!

[DinodudeEpic]

More bourgeois ideology, I presume?

Do you think power will not exist in a socialist mode of production? It will.

And the power the proletariat will have over the class enemy will be more unstoppable and powerful then Bourgeois dictatorship.

Power does not corrupt, as nothing truly "corrupts". For something to corrupt means that there was an imparity from start.

Wait, so it is bourgeois to criticize the power of the bourgeois over our society? Why would a bourgeois ideology criticize the bourgeois? The bourgeois wouldn't want to have an ideology that calls for their untimely demise from ruling society. (Even then, class doesn't determine ideology. Many socialist intellectuals were either nobility, bourgeois, or petite-bourgeois. There is no collective class conscious. Reducing everything to class and economics will make you blind to the other parts of society.

No one would have power over one another in a socialist economy, since the enterprises would be shared by the workers or owned individually if there is only one person in it. There would be multiple enterprises that are kept in check through the free market and anti-monopoly regulations.

Also, you focus way too much on how the revolution will be achieved, and way too little about what the revolution will actually be for. Have an ideal! A goal! Don't treat society like it's a science.

[Comrade Hill]

Wait, so it is bourgeois to criticize the power of the bourgeois over our society? Why would a bourgeois ideology criticize the bourgeois? The bourgeois wouldn't want to have an ideology that calls for their untimely demise from ruling society. (Even then, class doesn't determine ideology. Many socialist intellectuals were either nobility, bourgeois, or petite-bourgeois. There is no collective class conscious. Reducing everything to class and economics will make you blind to the other parts of society.

No one would have power over one another in a socialist economy, since the enterprises would be shared by the workers or owned individually if there is only one person in it. There would be multiple enterprises that are kept in check through the free market and anti-monopoly regulations.

Also, you focus way too much on how the revolution will be achieved, and way too little about what the revolution will actually be for. Have an ideal! A goal! Don't treat society like it's a science.

You are confusing a socialist economy with a mixed-economy.

There are no "free markets" in a socialist economy.

[graffic]

These statistics are incredible. In the U.K 1% own 70% of the nations wealth. Rationally, know one can seriously support the status quo such as conservatives with these statistics in mind. This is plain wrong whatever political colour you wrap around the politics. Its hilarious that conservatives actually support this or propose no serious solution to change it. What a fucked up world we live in

[DinodudeEpic]

You are confusing a socialist economy with a mixed-economy.

There are no "free markets" in a socialist economy.

A mixed economy is just capitalism with plenty of state-regulation.

Note that when I say free market, I'm referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

[Rafiq]

It is Bourgeois to adhere to bourgeois philosophical standpoints like " power corrupts "

Mutualist economic theory? So you're not even a Utopian Socialist, you're a Bourgeois romanticist

[RGacky3]

It is Bourgeois to adhere to bourgeois philosophical standpoints like " power corrupts "


No, its not, its bourgeois to make your living by controling the means of production and taking the surplus from other peoples labor.

Having independant thoughts, including the very rational viewpoint that "power corrupts," is just being rational.


Mutualist economic theory? So you're not even a Utopian Socialist, you're a Bourgeois romanticist

Mutualists are AGAINST CAPITALISM? Stop calling shit bourgeois that clearly is'nt bourgeois, i.e. just everything that is'nt marxist-leninist.

Why is'nt YOUR position bourgeois? Actually its more so, because the bourgeois, use the stalinist boogyman to try and keep people away from socialism, and you totally reinforce that, you totally reinforce the support of gulags and dictatorships (And don't give me this DOP bullshit, what you support is NOT an actual workers democracy, its a centralized top down state), so really its YOUR ideology that is the bourgeois one, your just reinforcing their propeganda.

[Rafiq]

No, its not, its bourgeois to make your living by controling the means of production and taking the surplus from other peoples labor.

If you knew Marxism, you would know that the bourgeoisie evolves not only as a relation to the mode of production, but as a culture. Bourgeois ideology is something that is created to "Back up" their position as a class. Art, music, etc.

And to say Power corrupts is based within the costraint of bourgeois thinking, i.e. Idealism, that humans will naturally, in all conditions act a certain way regardless of the material and social conditions placed before them.


Having independant thoughts, including the very rational viewpoint that "power corrupts," is just being rational.

no it's not, it's a baseless statement that is only true if Bourgeois philosophy and Idealism are valid, which they are not. Power does not corrupt, for something to corrupt would mean that it was impaired from start. In this sense "corruption", in terms of human social behavior does not exist.




Mutualists are AGAINST CAPITALISM?

And yet they wish to retain the capitlaist mode of production, and flower it all up with this altruistic communal bullshit. It is still running off of the capitalist mode of production, and the very existence of "Free Markets" and "Businesses" signifies it. It is no better then social democracy or "the welfare state".


Stop calling shit bourgeois that clearly is'nt bourgeois, i.e. just everything that is'nt marxist-leninist.

You don't even know that the Bourgeoisie is a culture as a whole and regulates the ideas of society. And I'm not a Marxist Leninist so stop talking out of your ass.


Why is'nt YOUR position bourgeois?


Because I'm a materialist, and the position I hold is completely materialist and scientific.



Actually its more so, because the bourgeois, use the stalinist boogyman to try and keep people away from socialism, and you totally reinforce that, you totally reinforce the support of gulags and dictatorships

You don't know what the term "Bourgeois" means. They don't use the Stalinist boogeyman, they use Bourgeois philosophy like "Human nature is flawed" or "Power corrupts" etc. etc. or Fukuyama philosophy, that capitalism is "the best we have".

And I do, fully support Dictatorship, but Gulags... Not so much.


(And don't give me this DOP bullshit, what you support is NOT an actual workers democracy

And who are you to make that judgement?



, its a centralized top down state), so really its YOUR ideology that is the bourgeois one, your just reinforcing their propeganda.

The state that is directly controlled by the proletariat themselves. The state is not a third party being in class politics, it must be controlled by a class in order for it to exist. Again, more Bourgeois symbolic representations of the world, this time from you.

[Judicator]

I am curious to see how pro-capitalists could justify these statistics.

Third parties are free to make contracts. The government should not try to dictate what I should or shouldn't pay you to perform a [legal] service.

[ColonelCossack]

I heard that the top 15,000 Americans collectively own 1/2 the GDP of Brazil. Is that scaled up/down?

[RichardAWilson]

The bankers work hard for a living and should be rewarded. Thank God Bush saw the light and exempted hedge fund managers from income taxation. Furthermore, it's time we stop moral-hazard in providing the unemployed, disabled and elderly with welfare benefits.

We're encouraging them to be lazy when they need to learn the value of hard work and thrift. Economics teaches us that everybody that wants a job can find a job. Those that are unemployed are making the choice to have more leisure time.

It's obvious that we should reward our job-creators by extending the Bush tax-cutting.

God Bless Ronald Reagan, George Walker Bush and God Bless America!

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2306568]I'm gonna call bullshit on your first statement, I'd say most people in the top 1% stay there,

You would lose.

[RichardAWilson]

He's right. The "top 1%" is a rather fluid group. However, the top 1% usually does stay within the top 5%. Furthermore, mobility is much lower as you move toward the top .1%, where those super-millionaires and billionaires often do stay for life. Once they've accumulated massive fortunes, they can simply keep accumulating more wealth by investing those fortunes.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=DinodudeEpic;2306928]Wait, so it is bourgeois to criticize the power of the bourgeois over our society? Why would a bourgeois ideology criticize the bourgeois? The bourgeois wouldn't want to have an ideology that calls for their untimely demise from ruling society. (Even then, class doesn't determine ideology. Many socialist intellectuals were either nobility, bourgeois, or petite-bourgeois. There is no collective class conscious. Reducing everything to class and economics will make you blind to the other parts of society.

If there is no "collective" class consciousness, then upon what does socialism draw to justify its actions and beliefs, and to explain the actions of the capitalists?


No one would have power over one another in a socialist economy, since the enterprises would be shared by the workers

But of course that is statement is pure bollerplate. It has to be applied. And unless the enterprises in question could not take action without unanimity of decision (which is in fact a violation of democratic principles) a group of people is going to have authority and power over a smaller group of people.



Also, you focus way too much on how the revolution will be achieved, and way too little about what the revolution will actually be for.

It would seem given the track record of socialist revolts throughout the 20th century, perhaps socialists ought to be paying some serious attention to how it is achieved.

[Rafiq]

No one would have power over one another in a socialist economy, since the enterprises would be shared by the workers or owned individually if there is only one person in


Delegates would not exist, neither would representatives? good luck with that one :rolleyes:

And what do you mean by "enterprises?" It would seem you are just organizing the capitalist mode of production in a different way.




There would be multiple enterprises that are kept in check through the free market and anti-monopoly regulations.

Oh wow, this is just sad.

A free market is contradictory to socialism, and, since you are talking about capitalism, the existence of hte profit motive as it exists in capitalism (there would have to be a profit motive in socialism, but what would be taken into account would be efficiency and construction on the basis of usefulness, etc.) so what would make you believe that people will not decide to form their own buisness and dominate the market? Perhaps.. Dare I say... The power of an external force that would stop them from doing that?

The very existence of regulations would contradict the idea of a free market, so stop trying to sound appealing to the libertarians.

And the very existence of regulations would mean power must exist to enact those regulations, unless you're a moralist who thinks people are just going to "do good things" as a cause of conditions, which is complete bullshit.



Also, you focus way too much on how the revolution will be achieved, and way too little about what the revolution will actually be for.

Baseball is right, looking back at history, focusing on "how a revolution will be achieved" is all together more important. And the revolution will "Be for" one class dominating the other. Nothing more, nothing less. This is already established and should not be analysed with serious attention (Sky is blue).



Have an ideal! A goal! Don't treat society like it's a science.


I will treat society through the scientific method. Ideas are reflections of the mode of production, and goals are responses to the conditions already established by them. I'm not going to stoop down to the level of your disgusting romanticism, if that is what you are asserting I should do.

[DinodudeEpic]

[QUOTE]

If there is no "collective" class consciousness, then upon what does socialism draw to justify its actions and beliefs, and to explain the actions of the capitalists?



But of course that is statement is pure bollerplate. It has to be applied. And unless the enterprises in question could not take action without unanimity of decision (which is in fact a violation of democratic principles) a group of people is going to have authority and power over a smaller group of people.




It would seem given the track record of socialist revolts throughout the 20th century, perhaps socialists ought to be paying some serious attention to how it is achieved.

Maybe it's the rights of the individual worker. Maybe it's that democracy in the economy is better then plutocracy. Maybe it is that the social contract made with the wage system changes without the worker's consent.

I don't mean the overall enterprises. I mean each individual enterprise would be shared by it's workers. Aka, cooperatives in a free market. An enterprise means a business. (Regardless of how it's organized or the money distributed.)

Yeah, because Marxist-Leninists are not obessed with HOW the socialist society would be established. (Dictatorship until we can bring utopia! Tons of transitional stages to shape society into one that is suitable to our beautiful utopia. Instead of actually establishing a socialist economic system.)

Now, I meant that instead of endless transitional stages for some sort of far off paradise, maybe socialists can actually try to establish socialist societies instead of a transitional stage.

As for regulations and such, I am not an anarchist. Notice that I said ECONOMY, and not government. Even then, the only regulations would be to protect people's rights and possessions. Even Libertarians want some sort of regulation, against fraud and such. So, regulations against monopolies, wage labor, and corporations would be great. Of course, a constitutional semi-direct democracy would be the government.

I am not an idealist, but I want to stick to my ideas. Not abandon them at will. I love rationality, science, and reason. And, I'm not a romanticist. In fact, the reason why I want the society that I'm proposing is that freedom and liberty leads to the expansion of science and reason in the marketplace of ideas.

I am a fully practical person. One of the reasons why I'm even a mutualist in the first place is that markets are more practical then gift economies. I would love to have an anarchy, but it would lead straight into tyranny reestablishing itself. Direct democracy is also great, but we don't have the means to run it effectively yet. I don't advocate utopia, there will still be crime, fraud, and such in a liberal socialist society. But, it would be better then the previous system, and that's what matters.

(Thanks for wasting my Sunday night away.....)

[RGacky3]

You would lose.

Well, the US has one of the wost class mobility in the industrialized world ...

[Baseball]

Maybe it's the rights of the individual worker

Why are the rights of the individual worker of greater value than the rights of the individual capitalist? Just...because?


Maybe it's that democracy in the economy is better then plutocracy.

says who? Remember, the class theory states that ruling classes establish and maintains the institutions of society for its own benefit. If "class theory" isn't all that that relevent nowadays, then you can't really claim that "plutocracy" exists for the benefit of the capitalist. It "exists" for another reason.


Maybe it is that the social contract made with the wage system changes without the worker's consent.

Without a class theory explaining that such changes are an important cog for the capitalist to maintain his control over the means of production, you would need to find another way to condemn such actions. But you would also need to show such actions by the capitalist are not the result of a normal and functioning economy; and demonstrate that the socialists would not face the same problem, or explain how their solutions are superior.


I don't mean the overall enterprises. I mean each individual enterprise would be shared by it's workers.

Yes. I understood that. It was to that my comment was directed.



Yeah, because Marxist-Leninists are not obessed with HOW the socialist society would be established. (Dictatorship until we can bring utopia! Tons of transitional stages to shape society into one that is suitable to our beautiful utopia. Instead of actually establishing a socialist economic system.)

The problem which exists for the socialist is in dealing with those people who seek to thwart the construction of socialism, either its avowed enemies (such as myself) or people following socialists down the wrong path.
Its a legitimate problem. The vanguard is a way of resolving it. It is utopianism to assume that people will 'just do the right thing' (which may I add, always, miraculously, seems to involve following the will and belief of the socialist holding such utopian views).


Now, I meant that instead of endless transitional stages for some sort of far off paradise, maybe socialists can actually try to establish socialist societies instead of a transitional stage.

Sure. So describe what these efforts might involve.

[RGacky3]

Why are the rights of the individual worker of greater value than the rights of the individual capitalist? Just...because?


Your right, they should have the same rights, the same rights to the resources of the economy, the absolute same rights, and the same rights over the product of their labor.


It is utopianism to assume that people will 'just do the right thing' (which may I add, always, miraculously, seems to involve following the will and belief of the socialist holding such utopian views).


There is not ONE socialist theory that assumes that at all, infact that assumption is the basis of neo-classical economics.

[Nox]

I heard that the top 15,000 Americans collectively own 1/2 the GDP of Brazil. Is that scaled up/down?

It's probably the top 15,000 Brazilians

[Baseball]

There is not ONE socialist theory that assumes that at all, infact that assumption is the basis of neo-classical economics.

Then Dinotudepic is exploded-- it is he, not I (and I believe you gave it a thumb's up), who claimed that people would not have power over others in a socialist community. It is to those claims I responded.

[RGacky3]

Then Dinotudepic is exploded-- it is he, not I (and I believe you gave it a thumb's up), who claimed that people would not have power over others in a socialist community. It is to those claims I responded.

All we have to prove is that people would have LESS power over others in a socialist community than a capitalist community, and have LESS of an ability and incentive to abuse any of that power.

[DinodudeEpic]

Why are the rights of the individual worker of greater value than the rights of the individual capitalist? Just...because?



says who? Remember, the class theory states that ruling classes establish and maintains the institutions of society for its own benefit. If "class theory" isn't all that that relevent nowadays, then you can't really claim that "plutocracy" exists for the benefit of the capitalist. It "exists" for another reason.



Without a class theory explaining that such changes are an important cog for the capitalist to maintain his control over the means of production, you would need to find another way to condemn such actions. But you would also need to show such actions by the capitalist are not the result of a normal and functioning economy; and demonstrate that the socialists would not face the same problem, or explain how their solutions are superior.



Yes. I understood that. It was to that my comment was directed.




The problem which exists for the socialist is in dealing with those people who seek to thwart the construction of socialism, either its avowed enemies (such as myself) or people following socialists down the wrong path.
Its a legitimate problem. The vanguard is a way of resolving it. It is utopianism to assume that people will 'just do the right thing' (which may I add, always, miraculously, seems to involve following the will and belief of the socialist holding such utopian views).



Sure. So describe what these efforts might involve.

I mean that classes are not conscious and material entities. They still exist as social phenomena.

The worker doesn't have the same rights to property or to change his social contract as the capitalist. The capitalist can change the worker's wages and work at will, and the worker can't do that. Thus, socialism gives the capitalist and the worker equal rights.

Plutocracy: Rule by wealth.
Democracy: Rule by people (Voting).

Economic democracy: Economic rule by people(Voting).
Economic plutocracy: Economic rule by wealth.

Why capitalism is plutocracy? Well, corporations are plutocratic entities. The person who buys the most shares is the one who runs the company the most. This means that usually the wealthiest people in the corporation call all the shots. (Then there is the board of directors, an oligarchic part of the corporation.) There's also the fact that most individuals tend to want power, regardless of their class. Being a capitalist just gives them power that they won't let go. They would use the power to benefit their individual selves, like a dictator.

In a socialist economy, there would be no wages and no social contract with the capitalist. Instead, the social contract would be between free individuals. Since the businesses are controlled by the workers, they can change the social contract DEMOCRATICALLY. The capitalist would change it undemocratically without the consent of workers.

There are real examples of worker's cooperatives, and some that even are mildly successful.

I don't actually assume that people would do the right thing. That is why we have governments (A constitutional democratic one.), to protect people's rights. People have a right to own the fruits of his labor and fair social contract, and the capitalist violates both by extracting the surplus value of the labor at the capitalist's whims. So, I'm just adovocating one thing, and that thing is the abolishment of the extraction of a person's surplus labor. AKA abolish wage labor, along with already abolished methods of extracting surplus labor(Slavery and serfdom). We abolished slavery and serfdom, what makes abolishing wage labor authoritarian? Considering that we also prevent economic fraud and coercion (Capitalism is economic coercion), even in the proposed libertarian society.

Note that this is really just a part of the economic program, and I also want some political reforms such as the government having to have a percentage of laws be passed through referendum and such.

Also, I don't want to force collectivization. You can form private businesses, but you just can't extract the surplus labor of others. So, you will be the only person working in the business. (Unless you're willing to share the business with your family. It will be a coop officially, but it will be a family business de facto.)

Maybe I over-exaggerated by saying that no one would have power over someone else, but I can surely say that it is better then capitalism or the system that Rafiq proposes of vanguard dictatorship.

[Baseball]

I mean that classes are not conscious and material entities. They still exist as social phenomena.

The worker doesn't have the same rights to property or to change his social contract as the capitalist. The capitalist can change the worker's wages and work at will, and the worker can't do that. Thus, socialism gives the capitalist and the worker equal rights.

Plutocracy: Rule by wealth.
Democracy: Rule by people (Voting).

Economic democracy: Economic rule by people(Voting).
Economic plutocracy: Economic rule by wealth.

Why capitalism is plutocracy? Well, corporations are plutocratic entities. The person who buys the most shares is the one who runs the company the most. This means that usually the wealthiest people in the corporation call all the shots. (Then there is the board of directors, an oligarchic part of the corporation.) There's also the fact that most individuals tend to want power, regardless of their class. Being a capitalist just gives them power that they won't let go. They would use the power to benefit their individual selves, like a dictator.

In a socialist economy, there would be no wages and no social contract with the capitalist. Instead, the social contract would be between free individuals. Since the businesses are controlled by the workers, they can change the social contract DEMOCRATICALLY. The capitalist would change it undemocratically without the consent of workers.

There are real examples of worker's cooperatives, and some that even are mildly successful.

I don't actually assume that people would do the right thing. That is why we have governments (A constitutional democratic one.), to protect people's rights. People have a right to own the fruits of his labor and fair social contract, and the capitalist violates both by extracting the surplus value of the labor at the capitalist's whims. So, I'm just adovocating one thing, and that thing is the abolishment of the extraction of a person's surplus labor. AKA abolish wage labor, along with already abolished methods of extracting surplus labor(Slavery and serfdom). We abolished slavery and serfdom, what makes abolishing wage labor authoritarian? Considering that we also prevent economic fraud and coercion (Capitalism is economic coercion), even in the proposed libertarian society.

Note that this is really just a part of the economic program, and I also want some political reforms such as the government having to have a percentage of laws be passed through referendum and such.

Also, I don't want to force collectivization. You can form private businesses, but you just can't extract the surplus labor of others. So, you will be the only person working in the business. (Unless you're willing to share the business with your family. It will be a coop officially, but it will be a family business de facto.)

Maybe I over-exaggerated by saying that no one would have power over someone else, but I can surely say that it is better then capitalism or the system that Rafiq proposes of vanguard dictatorship.

The thought behind a "vanguard" is that it is an institution which guides the revolution, keeping it on track and protects it against those people seeking to thwart or destroy it. So when you say something along the lines of 'people can form private businesses, but you can't extract surplus value from others at that business' a vanguard is what keeps that business in compliance- and perhaps works to keep that business from "revising" what it means to extract surplus value from labor. Something has to exist in a socialist community to do that job, even if it is called by a different name.

[RGacky3]

The thought behind a "vanguard" is that it is an institution which guides the revolution, keeping it on track and protects it against those people seeking to thwart or destroy it.

I'm pretty sure Dinodude does'nt agree with the concept of the vanguard as leninists apply it in practice and theory.


So when you say something along the lines of 'people can form private businesses, but you can't extract surplus value from others at that business' a vanguard is what keeps that business in compliance- and perhaps works to keep that business from "revising" what it means to extract surplus value from labor. Something has to exist in a socialist community to do that job, even if it is called by a different name.

That thing is the community itself, and the LACK of any institutions that make it possible to extract value.

Again your just playing semantics.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2312937]I'm pretty sure Dinodude does'nt agree with the concept of the vanguard as leninists apply it in practice and theory.


He or she was quite clear in saying he doesn't.




That thing is the community itself, and the LACK of any institutions that make it possible to extract value.

Dinotude was quite clear he favored institutions which could in fact extract surplus value- if people were not cautious.
But aside from that, the claim that the "community itself" is the "vanguard" is absurd on the face of it

[RGacky3]

Dinotude was quite clear he favored institutions which could in fact extract surplus value- if people were not cautious.
But aside from that, the claim that the "community itself" is the "vanguard" is absurd on the face of it

Thats not what I said, I said you don't need a vangaurd because the community does what the vanguard proports to do in you definition.


Dinotude was quite clear he favored institutions which could in fact extract surplus value- if people were not cautious.


What does that mean?

[DinodudeEpic]

The thought behind a "vanguard" is that it is an institution which guides the revolution, keeping it on track and protects it against those people seeking to thwart or destroy it. So when you say something along the lines of 'people can form private businesses, but you can't extract surplus value from others at that business' a vanguard is what keeps that business in compliance- and perhaps works to keep that business from "revising" what it means to extract surplus value from labor. Something has to exist in a socialist community to do that job, even if it is called by a different name.

That's not what I want. I don't want one institution to control the entire revolution, nor the Republic that results for it. I merely want a constitution that protects the rights of people to own property(Without capitalists hording it to themselves.) and to have a fair/free social contract.

Who enforces the constitution? A semi direct-democratic constitutional republic.

Any party would have full rights, regardless of ideology. Conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, fascists, and even reactionaries can campaign, like in the democracies of now. You can even say that capitalism is great.

The constitution is what protects the rights of the people from capitalist restoration. Not some centralist organization that prevents dissent.

Unfortunately, not even a constitution can protect the people if the people themselves are apathetic. A politically active population is what a democracy, economic and political, needs.

Also, the vanguard idea is to have a close-knit group of individuals cooperate to steer the revolution. Which is completely different from the idea of a constitutional semi-direct democracy that is ALREADY done with the revolution as soon as it is founded.

Here's a question: Is the American Constitution (And it's various amendments.) vanguardist because it protects the ideals of the American Revolution with force? (You can't own slaves. You can't own serfs.) Why aren't there people trying to recreate slavery under a different name? (Well, cheap labor is just capitalism as usual. And, the South did try to do that, but now there is no serious attempt to legalize slavery de facto.)

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=DinodudeEpic;2313364]That's not what I want. I don't want one institution to control the entire revolution, nor the Republic that results for it. I merely want a constitution that protects the rights of people to own property(Without capitalists hording it to themselves.) and to have a fair/free social contract.

Who enforces the constitution? A semi direct-democratic constitutional republic.

Any party would have full rights, regardless of ideology. Conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, fascists, and even reactionaries can campaign, like in the democracies of now. You can even say that capitalism is great.

The constitution is what protects the rights of the people from capitalist restoration.

Ok. So pro-capitalist parties can operate- but they are not allowed to win.
Are they allowed to work to adjust the constitution?
How about when the constitution itself is being ratified?


Not some centralist organization that prevents dissent.

It would seem that that constitution is that central organization.

Unfortunately, not even a constitution can protect the people if the people themselves are apathetic. A politically active population is what a democracy, economic and political, needs.


Also, the vanguard idea is to have a close-knit group of individuals cooperate to steer the revolution. Which is completely different from the idea of a constitutional semi-direct democracy that is ALREADY done with the revolution as soon as it is founded.

But who, or what, steered the ratification of that constitution?

[RGacky3]

Ok. So pro-capitalist parties can operate- but they are not allowed to win.
Are they allowed to work to adjust the constitution?
How about when the constitution itself is being ratified?

Once Capitalism stops being the dominant structure, and there are democratic institutions, I think we have as much to fear from capitalism coming back as we do now of Monarchistic feudalism coming back.

[Baseball]

once capitalism stops being the dominant structure, and there are democratic institutions, i think we have as much to fear from capitalism coming back as we do now of monarchistic feudalism coming back.


u-t-o-p-i-a-n-i-s-m

[RGacky3]

ummm, no, how many monarchists do you see around?

[DinodudeEpic]

[QUOTE]

Ok. So pro-capitalist parties can operate- but they are not allowed to win.
Are they allowed to work to adjust the constitution?
How about when the constitution itself is being ratified?



It would seem that that constitution is that central organization.

Unfortunately, not even a constitution can protect the people if the people themselves are apathetic. A politically active population is what a democracy, economic and political, needs.



But who, or what, steered the ratification of that constitution?

They can be even allowed to win and modify the constitution. (Although there needs to be a referendum and a 2/3 majority legislative vote.) Democracies let pro-dictatorship parties run for positions in government, why not let socialist countries do the same?

The constitution is just a safeguard against undemocratic exercises of power. Just like the USA, except now it also guarantees economic democracy.

The people would vote for the constitution in a referendum. The US constitution was made by a small group, and that is why there are flaws in that constitution. So, we should still be able to make amendments to the constitution.

As for apathy and other problems, we can't make a perfect society. That's not what I want. I want a BETTER and freer society. It is not going to be utopia, there will be problems. But, there will be less problems. The democracies of now are amazing compared to the monarchies of the past, but they still need improvement. We will never reach a perfect society, instead we all should just improve upon society as much as we can.

Anyways, please go back to topic.


(As for monarchists, I did troll as one in scumfront. Got some wtfs...)

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2316153]

They can be even allowed to win and modify the constitution. (Although there needs to be a referendum and a 2/3 majority legislative vote.) Democracies let pro-dictatorship parties run for positions in government, why not let socialist countries do the same?

The constitution is just a safeguard against undemocratic exercises of power. Just like the USA, except now it also guarantees economic democracy.

The people would vote for the constitution in a referendum. The US constitution was made by a small group, and that is why there are flaws in that constitution. So, we should still be able to make amendments to the constitution.

As for apathy and other problems, we can't make a perfect society. That's not what I want. I want a BETTER and freer society. It is not going to be utopia, there will be problems. But, there will be less problems. The democracies of now are amazing compared to the monarchies of the past, but they still need improvement. We will never reach a perfect society, instead we all should just improve upon society as much as we can.

Anyways, please go back to topic.


(As for monarchists, I did troll as one in scumfront. Got some wtfs...)

Why would would stormfront be pro-monarch? The original nazis and fascists were very anti-monarchial.

The original topic? Mr. RichardWilson settled it a long time ago when he agreed that the top 1% is very fluid, not rigid as Gacky was claiming.

[RGacky3]

not rigid as Gacky was claiming.

Where did I say that it was rigid? Also read what RichardWilson said again, he agreed with my basic idea and disagreed with your conclusion.

[Baseball]

Where did I say that it was rigid? Also read what RichardWilson said again, he agreed with my basic idea and disagreed with your conclusion.

Note # 9

[RGacky3]

Yes, and I was basically right, most wealth people stay wealthy, or at least upper middle class. The percentages might be different, but the point is the same.

Also the space for the upper middle class and rich is getting relatively smaller.

Marx talked about the ruling 10% vrs the 90%, that sort of class inequality would be paradise compared to now.

[DinodudeEpic]

[QUOTE=DinodudeEpic;2316602]

Why would would stormfront be pro-monarch? The original nazis and fascists were very anti-monarchial.


It isn't, at least mostly. I was trolling as one to ANNOY them by being too far right for them...

Finally, the topic was talking about the 0.1%, not the 1%. People can jump from the 1% to the 4 or 5 %. But, does the 0.1% ever leave their place in large numbers?