Some good reasons to advocate communism [Archive]

AC-Socialist

4th April 2004, 11:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:04 AM
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppression
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has seen huge amounts of political violence
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)

So let's try communism again. Who knows, maybe next time we can get it right!!?
err.. not socialism. In europe socialism has done the reverse, bringining about public healthcare and social security. After the second world war, Clement Atlees socialist govenment of britiain managed to bring britian back from ruin to economic prospertiy through a policy of nationalization, and the establishment of the welfare state which in turn attrackted a good rate of immigration, filling jobs.

Hiero

4th April 2004, 11:26

A lot of the blame can be pointed at capitalist countries interventaion espically US which has caused dictatorships to protect the socialist system.

Hoppe

4th April 2004, 11:52

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 4 2004, 11:21 AM
err.. not socialism. In europe socialism has done the reverse, bringining about public healthcare and social security. After the second world war, Clement Atlees socialist govenment of britiain managed to bring britian back from ruin to economic prospertiy through a policy of nationalization, and the establishment of the welfare state which in turn attrackted a good rate of immigration, filling jobs.
Pfff, most states in Europe are almost bankrupt and the welfare states have to be cut drastically. So in the long-term it's not sustainable.

Misodoctakleidist

4th April 2004, 11:54

I think AC-Socialist makes a good point, all the attempts at communism Nyder is refering to are Leninist. Less extreme form of socialism have been incredibly succesfull and communism wouldn't be expected to work yet anyway becuase the material conditions don't exist.

The failure of Leninist nations actualy strengthens the theroy of Marxism, Marx said that it was possible for the proletariat to sieze power before the material conditions for communism were prevailent but that it would act only as a point in the bougeoire revolution. Marx pointed to the example of the Jacobin revolution in France which through tyranny and violence destroyed the last remenents of Feudalism, achivieng in a few years what would have taken the bougeoirsie decades. When you take into consideration the fact that Russia still had an absolute monarch and china was being fought over by feudal war-lords before their repective Leninist revolution and that both are now more capitaistic than the USA having gone through a period of extremely fast industrialisation, it seems that their revolutions were 'just points in the bougeoire revolution.'

AC-Socialist

4th April 2004, 12:09

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 4 2004, 11:52 AM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 4 2004, 11:52 AM)
AC-[email protected] 4 2004, 11:21 AM
err.. not socialism. In europe socialism has done the reverse, bringining about public healthcare and social security. After the second world war, Clement Atlees socialist govenment of britiain managed to bring britian back from ruin to economic prospertiy through a policy of nationalization, and the establishment of the welfare state which in turn attrackted a good rate of immigration, filling jobs.
Pfff, most states in Europe are almost bankrupt and the welfare states have to be cut drastically. So in the long-term it's not sustainable. [/b]
No, your wrong. Public spending in europe had over the past 3 decades have increased above the rate of inflation in there respective countries. Indeed, in Sweeden, which has a socialized rail, health, gas, telecommunication, road public transport etc. the polulation enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world, and yes, it is above the US.

The europeans to me have a different midset, definatly a more leftist, socialy aware one. They value social security and looking after there populations above profit and petty advancement to an admirable extent.

God of Imperia

4th April 2004, 12:29

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)
Ever wondered why? Because of the blockades by capitalistic countrys like the US, see what happend in Cuba, the poverty there is mainly created by the actions of the US ...

Don't Change Your Name

4th April 2004, 14:25

1. Communism never existed
2. Leninism sucks. There's no need to explain that.
3. All those countries never passed the capitalist stage (which means their views and attitudes are old-fashioned, their useful technologies scarce, they hadn't got enough investments that would have helped the economy) and "socialism" was "imposed"
4. You say that standard of living was very low. By which standards? Of course it's very easy to say such things when you only think of yankeeland as a "wealthy" place. Listen up buddy, just because 5% of the people in capitalism is wealthy and the rest can have a car and TVs it doesnt mean that they are wealthy. After all the money that you spend on what the propaganda and the ads makes you buy is the money you dont spend in getting such things as means of production. Of course it's easy to blame those "lazy idiots" who do that, even if it is because the propaganda is everywhere and sells them the image that "if you buy our products now you will be like this good looking, successful, rich man who has attitude and status", which obviously benefits those who own the capital that is used to produce such things. It's obvious that they don't care about that, because after all it's only to expand their bank accounts and buy another Porsche. And it's very normal to hide poverty calling the poor "criminals".
5. Such a society will not happen yet. If someone tries to impose such a system nowadays it will be doomed to failure. Wait another 15 years at least.

synthesis

4th April 2004, 19:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:04 AM
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppression
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has seen huge amounts of political violence
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)

So let's try communism again. Who knows, maybe next time we can get it right!!?
You don't "try" socialism or communism. It happens because it is forced by material conditions.

A government consisting of the people can never be a dictatorship by your usage of the word, although it is a dictatorship in Marxist terminology.

This is not the first time I have had to explain these things to you, Nyder.

Commie Girl

4th April 2004, 20:37

:) What are you talking about? Canada has definite Socialist policies and we have a very high standard of living.

Hoppe

4th April 2004, 21:16

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 4 2004, 12:09 PM
No, your wrong. Public spending in europe had over the past 3 decades have increased above the rate of inflation in there respective countries. Indeed, in Sweeden, which has a socialized rail, health, gas, telecommunication, road public transport etc. the polulation enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world, and yes, it is above the US.

The europeans to me have a different midset, definatly a more leftist, socialy aware one. They value social security and looking after there populations above profit and petty advancement to an admirable extent.
I am certainly not wrong. I said that these policies are unsustainable. France and Germany are bankrupt unless they start cutting back on public expenditure very fast. Italy is even worse. Sweden has had artificial means of gaining competive advantages over rival countries by keeping the wage increases very low (lower than productivity gains), the same as here in Holland. Now China is on track it's bye bye Sweden.

Furthermore, the population is aging so public expenditures have to increase to pay for this. Since there is no money, there is a problem. You can tax more, but that will definately decrease the standard of living.

Being socially aware has nothing to do with the welfare state. US citizens are also aware since they donate $280 billion to charity per year. More than any European citizen does. But then again you probably advocate that income redistribution is more admirable than charity.

AC-Socialist

5th April 2004, 01:37

Please tell me where you get your information from. Ive asked my economics master, who says that all welfare stsems in europe are entirely sustainable apart from Italies (who has the most right-wing government in europe) even above the rate of inflation/annum. I personaly can see no reason why the other countries would be bankrupt at all.

Furthermore, the population is aging

The population where, all europe? I think not, even if it is true in one or two...

socialy aware has nothing to do with the welfare state

so i suppose its called 'social security' for fun? Please read before you post.

Nas

5th April 2004, 02:41

some countries have Socialist ideas - like Canada but............they are still Capitalists

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

5th April 2004, 03:06

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship

The USSR and Cuba had/has presidents just like any other. Hugo Chavez and Salvador Allende were elected in by capitalist countries.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty

Every country that has tried communism or socialism has had huge increases in their standards of living from their respective pre-revolutionary era. Cuba has the highest standard of living in latin america, and in aspects such as healthcare and education, surpasses even the US.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppressionp

Every communist or socialist country has experience worker's liberation from capitalist oppression. It is the capitalists that are the oppressors.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living

See above.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has seen huge amounts of political violence

Try EVERY government has seen huge amounts of political violence.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)

As opposed to the 3 trillion dollor US debt? There is nothing we can do about revisionism from here. If I had my way there would be no "market reforms". Some country's socialist economies are being undermined by international (American) pressure.

New Tolerance

5th April 2004, 03:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:04 AM
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppression
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has seen huge amounts of political violence
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)

So let's try communism again. Who knows, maybe next time we can get it right!!?
EVERY person who brings these points up do not realize that these points had been brought up a billion times before and were all countered off and made no difference what so ever. If you DO realize that these points had been brought up a billion times before, then lol, what the heck is the point?

Som

5th April 2004, 06:15

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship

Leninism.

Communism is not a monolithic ideology.

Treating it as such is a game in rhetoric.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty

Not compared to when they were capitalist.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppression

Repetitve.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living

and its always been better than feudalism.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has seen huge amounts of political violence

Thats because peace seems gets us shot, isn't that right mr. pinochet?

So let's try communism again. Who knows, maybe next time we can get it right!!?

Yes, and we'll do something different.

Hiero

5th April 2004, 06:25

*EVERY person that has tried change our views on communism or socialism has failed
*EVERY person that has tried prove communism or socialism has generated a imporvished state, dictatorship etc has completely ignored the pre revolution days
*EVERY person that has tried prove communism or socialism doesnt work, has proven they dont know much about communism or socialism.
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc

So let's try it again, who knows we get something right next time.

Eastside Revolt

5th April 2004, 06:34

"*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship"

True, with the exception of the paris commune.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty

True with the exception of the paris commune and cuba. Some dumbass from the states might look at a Cuban kid who doesn't get a car from mommy and daddy at 16, as living in poverty, but they are idiots. Cuban's have better education, better chance at further education, and a better healthcare system than the United States. Who gives a shit if there is virtually no market for valentine's day chocolates.

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppression

True with the exception of Cuba and the Paris Commune. What's capitalism's record on this one? :lol:

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living

"Standard of living" a largely useless statistic when one of the richest citizens in your contry could afford to raise a few million childeren, that in his own country live in ABJECT poverty.(ie the ghetto, or native reservations)

"blah blah blah political violence"

Again I reffer you to capitalism's record

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)

Socialist governments will no longer need to do this once communism has taken effect.

Hoppe

5th April 2004, 10:13

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 5 2004, 01:37 AM
Please tell me where you get your information from. Ive asked my economics master, who says that all welfare stsems in europe are entirely sustainable apart from Italies (who has the most right-wing government in europe) even above the rate of inflation/annum. I personaly can see no reason why the other countries would be bankrupt at all.

Oh, I get my information from various sources, but certainly not from one economics professor. I am still waiting for the day that someone comes up with the string-theory of economics.

The reason that they are bankrupt is the deficit spending of the governments and the enormous amounts of public debt (when will they ever be repaid?). The situation in Holland and the UK is slightly better since they have saved a lot of money (which is unfortunately invested in crappy US securities like Fannie Mae). You should ask your master (is this highschool, university?) what he thinks about the levels of public debt or the debt of households and companies in relation to the fiat-money system we now have.

Maybe the time for revolution is closer than you think.

The population where, all europe? I think not, even if it is true in one or two...

No many more. If it was only Belgium there wouldn't be much problems, but in most countries there was a boom in pregnancies after WWII. All these people will retire around 2010. Neither France, nor Germany, nor Italy has saved enough money to pay for pensions, healthcoverage.

so i suppose its called 'social security' for fun? Please read before you post.

It's just a nametag. People were socially aware before it was introduced, but now it is compulsory.

Hiero

5th April 2004, 11:57

Whenever any of these countries do make money they are forced to reapiar the debt when the money could be used on other programs. In one of the latest news internationalis a former world banker told all about the world banks and IMF and how they force to stop aid and what not if the counties doesnt pay debt. IN Thailand they followe the advice and which forced them to cut the aids program whic cause more a rise in infection.

Nyder

5th April 2004, 12:39

Again I am noticing a trend that among the leftists in this thread to blame capitalism for the actions of governments.

Let me refresh your memory:

Capitalism = voluntary exchange, private property and free markets.

Government = forceful exchange, public property and intervention in markets.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

You may argue that a Government is needed to protect private property rights but this is not necessarily the case. The private sector already does quite a good job of this with security guards and technology.

Misodoctakleidist

5th April 2004, 13:06

Are you going to ignore my arguments then Nyder? I didn't blame capitalism.

Don't Change Your Name

5th April 2004, 20:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 12:39 PM
Let me refresh your memory:

Capitalism = voluntary exchange, private property and free markets.

Government = forceful exchange, public property and intervention in markets.
Government = legalized defense of one class from another one

Therefore,

Government = defense of the capitalist class (and their mercenaries of course, who are in charge of it)

Osman Ghazi

5th April 2004, 21:39

'voluntary exchange' = doublespeak for wage-slavery
'private property' = doublespeak for institutionalized inequality
'free markets' = doublespeak for mass exploitation

Capitalism = slavery, inequality and exploitation

You may argue that a Government is needed to protect private property rights but this is not necessarily the case. The private sector already does quite a good job of this with security guards and technology.

And who is going to stop these private sector security companies from using their private armies to set up a dictatorship?

Hoppe: You say that it is unsustainable and that their debt is caused by their social security benefits but what about the U$? Not only do they have one of the worst social security programs in the Western world, they also have the world's strongest economy and yet they are in debt more than anyone else. So obviously, it is not caused by social security.
I agree with you though that the coming trials of the baby boomers will seriously test the ability of these systems to cope with demand.

Xvall

5th April 2004, 21:43

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppression
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has seen huge amounts of political violence
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)

What about Moldova? How about nations that were under the control of socialists (for a while, before the CIA kill them) like Chile under Salvador Allende? What about people like Lula who have taken steps towards socialism? Can't I say the same thing about capitalist nations? Can't I point out places like Haiti, and say that it is an example of how capitalism leads to poverty and civil warfare.

AC-Socialist

5th April 2004, 21:48

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 5 2004, 10:13 AM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 5 2004, 10:13 AM)
AC-[email protected] 5 2004, 01:37 AM
Please tell me where you get your information from. Ive asked my economics master, who says that all welfare stsems in europe are entirely sustainable apart from Italies (who has the most right-wing government in europe) even above the rate of inflation/annum. I personaly can see no reason why the other countries would be bankrupt at all.

Oh, I get my information from various sources, but certainly not from one economics professor. I am still waiting for the day that someone comes up with the string-theory of economics.

The reason that they are bankrupt is the deficit spending of the governments and the enormous amounts of public debt (when will they ever be repaid?). The situation in Holland and the UK is slightly better since they have saved a lot of money (which is unfortunately invested in crappy US securities like Fannie Mae). You should ask your master (is this highschool, university?) what he thinks about the levels of public debt or the debt of households and companies in relation to the fiat-money system we now have.

Maybe the time for revolution is closer than you think.

The population where, all europe? I think not, even if it is true in one or two...

No many more. If it was only Belgium there wouldn't be much problems, but in most countries there was a boom in pregnancies after WWII. All these people will retire around 2010. Neither France, nor Germany, nor Italy has saved enough money to pay for pensions, healthcoverage.

so i suppose its called 'social security' for fun? Please read before you post.

It's just a nametag. People were socially aware before it was introduced, but now it is compulsory. [/b]

The reason that they are bankrupt is the deficit spending of the governments and the enormous amounts of public debt

Deficit SPENDING? surely a contradiciton, or a mistake?

You agument hold no relevence. Countires do well economcally some years and bad some years. The european euro countires are explicitly linked economically, so, after a year as dry economically as this, they may expericne a slightly larger PSBR deficit than previos years, each year they make repayemnts as a percentage of GDP (PSDR). The ratio with which this is payed back is entirely dependant on the amount of money is required to complete the democratic policies fiscaly! pro rata, it really is irrelevant if we see a large deficit, there will always be one! it is a way to judge the fiscal policies of successive years, it doesnt mean the economy is failing.

Ill give you an example so you can understand. The buget of the british chancellor, Mr. Brown this year puts the british government in a £35.7bil deficit, however the economy has grown above the previos years. You can in no way attribute PSDR to the well-being of the economy.

In the words of one of your counterparts - "game, set and match i belive"

Robert Edward Lee

6th April 2004, 00:51

In the words of one of your counterparts - "game, set and match i belive"

:P I'm touched ;)

Hoppe

6th April 2004, 08:50

You agument hold no relevence. Countires do well economcally some years and bad some years. The european euro countires are explicitly linked economically, so, after a year as dry economically as this, they may expericne a slightly larger PSBR deficit than previos years, each year they make repayemnts as a percentage of GDP (PSDR). The ratio with which this is payed back is entirely dependant on the amount of money is required to complete the democratic policies fiscaly! pro rata, it really is irrelevant if we see a large deficit, there will always be one! it is a way to judge the fiscal policies of successive years, it doesnt mean the economy is failing.

Ill give you an example so you can understand. The buget of the british chancellor, Mr. Brown this year puts the british government in a £35.7bil deficit, however the economy has grown above the previos years. You can in no way attribute PSDR to the well-being of the economy.

In the words of one of your counterparts - "game, set and match i belive"

Haha, certainly not. Is this your enhanced form of Keynesianism? Why are you under the illusion that the government works entirely different than your mum and dad's checkbook?

It looks very nice that debt is decreasing relatively but yet it still increases. If you think this is healthy............

AC-Socialist

6th April 2004, 12:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:50 AM

You agument hold no relevence. Countires do well economcally some years and bad some years. The european euro countires are explicitly linked economically, so, after a year as dry economically as this, they may expericne a slightly larger PSBR deficit than previos years, each year they make repayemnts as a percentage of GDP (PSDR). The ratio with which this is payed back is entirely dependant on the amount of money is required to complete the democratic policies fiscaly! pro rata, it really is irrelevant if we see a large deficit, there will always be one! it is a way to judge the fiscal policies of successive years, it doesnt mean the economy is failing.

Ill give you an example so you can understand. The buget of the british chancellor, Mr. Brown this year puts the british government in a £35.7bil deficit, however the economy has grown above the previos years. You can in no way attribute PSDR to the well-being of the economy.

In the words of one of your counterparts - "game, set and match i belive"

Haha, certainly not. Is this your enhanced form of Keynesianism? Why are you under the illusion that the government works entirely different than your mum and dad's checkbook?

It looks very nice that debt is decreasing relatively but yet it still increases. If you think this is healthy............
It has always been done in this way. It gives the government a view on how much should be spent by ratio upon the next years.

Hoppe

6th April 2004, 12:48

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 6 2004, 12:26 PM
It has always been done in this way. It gives the government a view on how much should be spent by ratio upon the next years.
Certainly not. This could only be done after the government took control over the money supply and the abolishment of the goldstandard. Then they could spend more in one year and pay back the other (which of course no government has ever done).

AC-Socialist

6th April 2004, 16:52

I dont understand what you are trying to say. I have been proved right by the history of successive european administrations. They all have borrowd and pay back per year dependant on the PSBR and of course the GDP, this is a good thing.

AC-Socialist

6th April 2004, 16:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:48 PM

Certainly not. This could only be done after the government took control over the money supply and the abolishment of the goldstandard.
lol, no i think youll find this is due to market forces

Hoppe

7th April 2004, 08:47

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 6 2004, 04:52 PM
I dont understand what you are trying to say. I have been proved right by the history of successive european administrations. They all have borrowd and pay back per year dependant on the PSBR and of course the GDP, this is a good thing.
haha, look for yourself: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcron...opy_52679811280 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcronos/queen/display.do?screen=detail&language=en&product=THEME2&root=THEME2_copy_200579925957/shorties_copy_282760044706/euro_na_copy_796854742728/na_geng_copy_1072287530519/na220_copy_52679811280)

Where does debt actually decrease?

Don't you mean "refinancing" instead of paying back?

AC-Socialist

7th April 2004, 13:49

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 7 2004, 08:47 AM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 7 2004, 08:47 AM)
AC-[email protected] 6 2004, 04:52 PM
I dont understand what you are trying to say. I have been proved right by the history of successive european administrations. They all have borrowd and pay back per year dependant on the PSBR and of course the GDP, this is a good thing.
haha, look for yourself: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcron...opy_52679811280 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcronos/queen/display.do?screen=detail&language=en&product=THEME2&root=THEME2_copy_200579925957/shorties_copy_282760044706/euro_na_copy_796854742728/na_geng_copy_1072287530519/na220_copy_52679811280)

Where does debt actually decrease?

Don't you mean "refinancing" instead of paying back? [/b]
Does this take into account inflation?

AC-Socialist

7th April 2004, 13:52

So last year austria only had a 0.2billion euros PSBR? I am proved right by this surely

Hoppe

7th April 2004, 15:06

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 7 2004, 01:52 PM
So last year austria only had a 0.2billion euros PSBR? I am proved right by this surely
Bit selective, not?

http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcron...py_980372281223 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/newcronos/queen/display.do?screen=detail&language=en&product=THEME2&root=THEME2_copy_200579925957/shorties_copy_282760044706/euro_na_copy_796854742728/na_geng_copy_1072287530519/na200pc_copy_980372281223)

Look at the big countries, most of them couldn't balance their budget during the boom, let alone repay their debt from the previous years.

Osman Ghazi

7th April 2004, 19:32

Wow, Norway is kicking ass. They had like seven straight surpluses. Also, I'd like to add that Canada has much the same polices as Europe and we have I think 6 straight surpluses, so it can be done.

Hoppe

7th April 2004, 20:36

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 07:32 PM
Wow, Norway is kicking ass. They had like seven straight surpluses. Also, I'd like to add that Canada has much the same polices as Europe and we have I think 6 straight surpluses, so it can be done.
Norway has oilrevenues which flow into a fund. The proceeds of this fund, which has the size of their GDP at this moment, is used to pay for certain things. Very clever move.

But then again, Norway is in the lucky position to not be part of the EU so they can pretty much do whatever they want.

Guest1

7th April 2004, 22:53

Not that the debt or deficit has anything to do with anythingm the US debt is what, 7.1 trillion dollars?

On top of that, it has continued to increase at a rate of 1.85 billion per day since September 30th, 2003

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

8th April 2004, 00:25

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 7 2004, 04:36 PM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 7 2004, 04:36 PM)
Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 07:32 PM
Wow, Norway is kicking ass. They had like seven straight surpluses. Also, I'd like to add that Canada has much the same polices as Europe and we have I think 6 straight surpluses, so it can be done.
Norway has oilrevenues which flow into a fund. The proceeds of this fund, which has the size of their GDP at this moment, is used to pay for certain things. Very clever move.

But then again, Norway is in the lucky position to not be part of the EU so they can pretty much do whatever they want. [/b]
Yes, Norway has oil revenues because the state owns them. If you had your way, the state wouldn't be doing anything, and some businuss owner would drill the oil themselves and pocket billions of dollers that could instead be used to help everyone rather then create a super-rich oil baron. Now...if the US could only see things like that...

peaccenicked

8th April 2004, 03:29

Communism has many definitions. Marxian type socialism has never existed.
People mix up transition with achievement. What has happened is national revolutions. These have failed to produce a classless society because the form of transition has never been truly international. A leninist country is a myth. The method is to find a phenonomen the universalise it without actually looking at history.
The idea of a single country achieving communism is ridiculous. The idea of communism is about sharing the world. we have never even been close to it.
We have only experienced in modern times the dominant mode of production which is imperialism and ephemeral societies where the law of value no longer operated in a real sense. The societies have had little or nothing to do with transition but have been entities where counter revolution has brought back the law of value. Money is now operating as money. Even Cuba has had to retreat towards a mixed economy and has much to do in democratic spheres.
Castro has much insight into the world situation.
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/2004/ing/f030104i.html

Nyder

8th April 2004, 07:20

Here are the steps towards communism (which is why it will never work):

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.

Hoppe

8th April 2004, 10:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:25 AM
Yes, Norway has oil revenues because the state owns them. If you had your way, the state wouldn't be doing anything, and some businuss owner would drill the oil themselves and pocket billions of dollers that could instead be used to help everyone rather then create a super-rich oil baron. Now...if the US could only see things like that...
Just wait till they run out of oil.

AC-Socialist

8th April 2004, 11:13

Look Hoppe, countries borrow to invest, simple as that. There are very few companies, especially the more profitable ones, that are cash rich. These eu countiries have chosen not to 'refinace' there PSDR. About 80% of all those countries have experiences sustained steady economic growth throughout the nineties since Black Wednesday. These govenments will pay pack when they see fit, or keep investing, it hardly meens there annual PSBR is unsustainable.

Misodoctakleidist

8th April 2004, 11:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:20 AM
Here are the steps towards communism (which is why it will never work):

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.
:lol: You really havn't got a fucking clue have you Nyder? Why have still not addressed my post?

Osman Ghazi

8th April 2004, 12:09

Firstly Nyder, we usually put 5 BEFORE 6 but I guess you're so smart that your way must be better.

1. We never said it would be automatic. Also, it isn't like it is going to happen tomorrow. It requires a little something called the immeriseration (to make miserable) of the proletariat. That means that no, they will not have comfortable lives when the revolution comes which is precisely why they will revolt. Way to show your ignorance.

2. Actually, the U$ is really the only Western country without socialist type policies. Canada and most of Europe have state-owned rail, mail, water nad other services, as well as universal healthcare and social security. So if anything, opposition would be much less in Western countries.

3. If you have ever looked at a single socialist country, you will see that production usually goes up at first. This is usually because they only have to manufacture simple products. Once their economies become more advanced, they tend to decline due to the innefficiency of their complex economy.

4. I have a newsflash for you: every system educates their people to believe that their system is the end all be all. I love this one though. When people fanatically believe in capitalism it's because they are right; if they fanatically belive in communism, it's because they are brainwashed. You really are naive to believe that.

6. :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry, I just found it funny that you are lecturing me and don't even know what number comes next. :lol: :lol: This does actually happen though. Obviously, the black 'market' is opposed to socialism and thusly the dictatorship of the proletariat mut destroy it, just as they must destroy all bourgeois influences to prevent counter-revolution.

5. :lol: Well, besides the fact that the USSR spent less of it's GDP on the military in the Cold War years, this is the general trend with the downfall of socialism. However, since they decided to have a revolution more than a hundred years too early, it is to be expected that they fail. However, they can still teach about the practical applications of socialist economic theory. Need I remind you that the first democracy eventually turned into an oligarchy? That the second democracy turned into a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. Or that the third democracy turned into an empire under Nabolione Buonaparte? Did people say that democracy would never work? Hell yeah they did. Were they right? You tell me.

Hoppe

8th April 2004, 13:37

Originally posted by AC-[email protected] 8 2004, 11:13 AM
Look Hoppe, countries borrow to invest, simple as that. There are very few companies, especially the more profitable ones, that are cash rich. These eu countiries have chosen not to 'refinace' there PSDR. About 80% of all those countries have experiences sustained steady economic growth throughout the nineties since Black Wednesday. These govenments will pay pack when they see fit, or keep investing, it hardly meens there annual PSBR is unsustainable.
I would hardly call spending money on welfare (or war, like the US) "investing". And I can't see why you as a socialist are in favour of this. Public debt means a huge transfer of money from the working class to the bourgeoisie who generally hold these bonds.

Tell me, why is Greenspan keeping interestrates so low? Or why is the ECB keeping interest rates so low? Where does the money come from to payback the debt (out of thin air?)?

Som

8th April 2004, 19:05

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

Pieces of history that are 'ludicrous': see Catalonia 1936, The Paris Commune, Russia 1917, Ukraine 1917, France may 1968, as well as a good deal of working class revolts around the world that were usually shot down.

Spoil? We're hoping to completely demolish them.

Eventually those very comfortable lives will turn sour, the ruling classes will usually bring about their own end, and people will change their minds.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

Nonsense, you've made a few leaps here, first assuming revolution is impossible, and will perpetually be unwanted, then assuming that no matter the nature of that party, which could be anti-authoritarian to its core, would turn into an authoritarian dictatorship as by if right wing magic swept it up. Then the little hole where if a communist government were elected, but people would somehow not want it there. For any far left wing government in a capitalist country to be elected, they have to have far more genuine support than would be traditionally needed in the political arena of capitalist parties, considering the forces of all the wealth and their allies in government, will be dead set against them, they control the media, in the decrepit state capitalism will be in for a majority socialist movement, their control of the government will probably be rather overt as well.
To be elected in spite of this would be quite an accomplishment in popular support, so basically your premise here goes against your assumption that a left wing government would not be wanted.

So now, with your own premise, you're going to have justify why a popular government would start shooting and arresting its citizens.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

Every socioeconomic system justifies itself that way. The stuff in american high school economics textbooks in any objective outlook are probably just as biased as one in Maos china.
Likewise in a capitalist system, if one doesn't organize their lives within that capitalist system, they just might starve.

Guest1

8th April 2004, 19:07

Debt is not a good thing, but it's rediculous to put it ahead of public health, education and welfare.

Debt reduction is not a pressing issues for industrialized nations, I don't believe that any of them are debt-free... ever.

The key is to balance it, so you don't end with 7.1 trillion dollars, or a spending spree of 1.85 billion per day when you're cutting taxes.

You have to be reasonable about it, raising taxes if you have to. What you don't do is cut your losses and sell the poor.

Hoppe

8th April 2004, 19:21

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 8 2004, 07:07 PM
Debt is not a good thing, but it's rediculous to put it ahead of public health, education and welfare.

Debt reduction is not a pressing issues for industrialized nations, I don't believe that any of them are debt-free... ever.

The key is to balance it, so you don't end with 7.1 trillion dollars, or a spending spree of 1.85 billion per day when you're cutting taxes.

You have to be reasonable about it, raising taxes if you have to. What you don't do is cut your losses and sell the poor.
Just wait till the next crash of our monetary system, it happened about 230 times before. The poor will be even worse off thanks to your short-term policies.

Guest1

8th April 2004, 19:36

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You're blaming the crashes of Capitalism on Socialism?

My dear, but misguided, friend. America, and its debt and right-wing idiocy is what will lead to the next crash, not Socialist policies.

AC-Socialist

8th April 2004, 19:39

I would hardly call spending money on welfare (or war, like the US) "investing".

I certainly would!!! Investing in the future wellbeing and social harmony of the people mabye?

Public debt means a huge transfer of money from the working class to the bourgeoisie who generally hold these bonds.

I really cant see where your coming from here...

Tell me, why is Greenspan keeping interestrates so low? Or why is the ECB keeping interest rates so low? Where does the money come from to payback the debt (out of thin air?)?

Because the borrowing by these countries is sustainable!!! And please dont talk about mr greenspan, we are discussing europe, not those alantacist bayliffs!

And as for the ECB, i rather think they are aiding the european countries as a whole by lowering them, and not lowering them as a result of spending!

Borrow-refinance-borrow-refinance........

Hoppe

8th April 2004, 19:53

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 8 2004, 07:36 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA

You're blaming the crashes of Capitalism on Socialism?

My dear, but misguided, friend. America, and its debt and right-wing idiocy is what will lead to the next crash, not Socialist policies.
Where did I actually say this? You like to read things that aren't there.

The crises can be entirely blamed on government intervention, certainly not my cup of tea. Intervention for beautifull things like universal healthcare, war, enormous infrastructural projects are hardly fundaments of my ideology.

I certainly would!!! Investing in the future wellbeing and social harmony of the people mabye?

Yeah sure. Creating a massive debt burden for future generations will certainly lead to solidarity between the young and elderly.

I really cant see where your coming from here...

Think harder.

Because the borrowing by these countries is sustainable!!! And please dont talk about mr greenspan and the ECB, we are discussing europe, not those alantacist bayliffs!

So now who's economically naieve here? You should read up on monetary policy, Greenspan and Trichet are very important in this highschool Keynesianism of yours.

Borrow-refinance-borrow-refinance........

Ha, I see you've skipped the repayments already. Glad to see that you now understand the economic reality, in which repayment hardly takes place.

Don't Change Your Name

8th April 2004, 20:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:20 AM
1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships.
Let's see: there have been many revolts in the past, on every single level: in Spain in the 30s, the Paris Commune, the last revolt in Argentina, the French Revolution, and many others. Are you saying that our views, our ideas, our attitudes, our values are exactly the same that they had when slavery existed? Or maybe by the time of the Crusades??? Then "progress" and "civilization" are a lie!!!

Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

Two things:
1) Not everyone is having such "confortable lives". If you think having a TV and maybe a better situation than some decades ago is a sign of how capitalism has gave us "progress", then you are wrong.
2) Those not that many individuals that enjoy "very confortable lives" won't necessarily have such a good situation forever.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

Why is there a need for a government?

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

Something like what happens nowadays . Something that will happen forever wuth every single political-economical order.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

Why is there a need to have a black market? Ok, I guess this is an attack to the few leninists that still exist.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.

Again, why is there a need for a government?
I think you ignore that people will keep wanting to have things, so they will work so that the other bastards work too to make them what they need. The only difference is how things are "exchanged".

New Tolerance

8th April 2004, 21:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:20 AM
Here are the steps towards communism (which is why it will never work):

1. First, the assumption that all the workers will automatically rise up and take over all means of production is entirely ludicrous. Especially in mostly market economies, where private ownership counts for a great deal of production (and a lot of it is small, privately owned business). Also, this would spoil many well established work relationships. Plus the fact that the majority of people in western type economies enjoy very comfortable lives and do not desire communism.

2. Thus, a communist government would have to be elected to enact central planning of the economy. All private property would come under government control - creating mass opposition in western economies (not so much in poor countries where communism style policies are already in place). The Government would need to make mass arrests ala Stalin to enforce it's authority.

3. The Government would become all-powerful, with a dictator at its helm. The economy goes into huge decline as innovation tumbles and output drops.

4. To maintain order and keep up productivity, the Government has to brainwash its citizens into communism and also organise peoples lives to fit into its administration of the economy.

6. Crime from the black market spirals out of control and the Government is constantly at war with its own citizens.

5. Soon it is realised that one large organisation cannot cater to the needs of everybody and there are mass shortages, severe poverty, and the Government ultimately bankrupts itself as it cannot afford to run the country anymore because of the huge drop in productivity brought on by communism. Either the Government remains stubborn and spends most of it's budget on the military (ie. North Korea and the USSR) or it brings on market reforms. Either way, it is inevitable that it will eventually collapse.

When will this guy realize that even if we proved that Communism does work, he will still be against it?

Rasta Sapian

8th April 2004, 22:29

If you are to examine communism through the eyes of a person blinded by greed then of course communism will fail!

If you can see beyond a world run by an economy, where money and material possesions are the main sources for existance, you may realize that is not what life should be about,

Go back to the ideology and grass roots objectives of socialism, to share, to be equal, to all work together for a better future.

If you cappies could only visualize what the world could be like if we were all united with the same goals in mind!

ps. you talk about work ethics, do you find that the masses of america working at walmart or macdonald's have a new strong work ethic, when most of the time they feel suppressed by what side of the fence they grew up on!

I think if we were to reorganize ourselves we could be much more productive and at the same time spreading the fundamental socialist ideals which could only be benificial for the masses!

Utopia my friends!
peace yall

Hoppe

9th April 2004, 11:16

Originally posted by New [email protected] 8 2004, 09:09 PM
When will this guy realize that even if we proved that Communism does work, he will still be against it?
New Tolerance,

You cannot prove it will work simply because you have history against you. However, and I don't know if Nyder agrees, if people voluntarily choose to establish a commune it can perfectly well work. Anyhow, most don't believe that something which works in a small group, say a family, can be "forced" onto a whole society. It's as simple as that.

Nyder

9th April 2004, 14:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:05 PM

Pieces of history that are 'ludicrous': see Catalonia 1936, The Paris Commune, Russia 1917, Ukraine 1917, France may 1968, as well as a good deal of working class revolts around the world that were usually shot down.

The Paris Commune was a brief socialist, reformist government in Paris from March 26 to May 30, 1871. This government was only made possible through a civil uprising of all revolutionist trends within Paris. - from Wikipedia

The Paris Commune was a socialist government. It was 'shot down' by government forces of the Versailles Army. It wasn't around for very long. Probably the same with those other revolutions.

Eventually those very comfortable lives will turn sour, the ruling classes will usually bring about their own end, and people will change their minds.

Uh-huh....

Nonsense, you've made a few leaps here, first assuming revolution is impossible, and will perpetually be unwanted, then assuming that no matter the nature of that party, which could be anti-authoritarian to its core, would turn into an authoritarian dictatorship as by if right wing magic swept it up.

That's what tends to happen when a Government 'gives' themselves such immense power over people. A communist government would seek to expand itself by nationalising industries and so forth.

Then the little hole where if a communist government were elected, but people would somehow not want it there.

Understandably, since an expansive government would be much more costly to pay for.

For any far left wing government in a capitalist country to be elected, they have to have far more genuine support than would be traditionally needed in the political arena of capitalist parties, considering the forces of all the wealth and their allies in government, will be dead set against them, they control the media, in the decrepit state capitalism will be in for a majority socialist movement, their control of the government will probably be rather overt as well.

'Capitalist parties' - you realise that this is a contradiction in terms do you? Or are you another ignorant commie who doesn't understand the difference between 'government' and capitalism?

Although I agree that enterprises do have a lot of influence on the government (because they want favourable legislation to limit competition and give them subsidies, etc). However this is the problem of government, not corporations. But I digress, yes corporations won't like the fact that a communist/socialist government will most likely make them bankrupt and destitute.

As for 'they control the media' - you will find a lot less variety in radio/tv/print media in communist countries.

So now, with your own premise, you're going to have justify why a popular government would start shooting and arresting its citizens.

Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Castro - need I go on?

To be elected in spite of this would be quite an accomplishment in popular support, so basically your premise here goes against your assumption that a left wing government would not be wanted.

Because I doubt people are going to vote themselves higher taxes and theft of personal property.

Every socioeconomic system justifies itself that way. The stuff in american high school economics textbooks in any objective outlook are probably just as biased as one in Maos china.

Yes but communist literature has been freely available in western countries. Only Governments could ban literature, not capitalists. Try finding any books on capitalist type literature in North Korea.

Likewise in a capitalist system, if one doesn't organize their lives within that capitalist system, they just might starve.

New Tolerance

9th April 2004, 15:05

New Tolerance,

You cannot prove it will work simply because you have history against you. However, and I don't know if Nyder agrees, if people voluntarily choose to establish a commune it can perfectly well work. Anyhow, most don't believe that something which works in a small group, say a family, can be "forced" onto a whole society. It's as simple as that.

I'm talking theortically, if history had been different. Further more, I'm not making any kind of statement about whether communism works or not, I'm making a statement about his motivation.

Misodoctakleidist

9th April 2004, 15:06

For god's sake nyder, put down that copy of atlas shrugged and open your eyes to the real world.

Nyder

9th April 2004, 15:18

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 8 2004, 12:09 PM

1. We never said it would be automatic. Also, it isn't like it is going to happen tomorrow. It requires a little something called the immeriseration (to make miserable) of the proletariat. That means that no, they will not have comfortable lives when the revolution comes which is precisely why they will revolt. Way to show your ignorance.

:lol: So your logic is like this: we should make the lives of working people more miserable so that they vote themselves a communist/socialist government (or all 'rise up' simultaneously and overthrow the 'capitalists'). Were you born this retarded?

Most people do live comfortable lives in 'western' economies, even with a theiving, looting and oppressive government on their back. Why would these people all of a sudden drop everything and follow the dictum of Marx?

2. Actually, the U$ is really the only Western country without socialist type policies. Canada and most of Europe have state-owned rail, mail, water nad other services, as well as universal healthcare and social security. So if anything, opposition would be much less in Western countries.

Oh, dear.. People don't consent to paying for these things - it is payed for by 'tax'.

The US doesn't have socialist type policies? Look at all the welfare programs, subsidies, national services, etc. You really are deluded.

3. If you have ever looked at a single socialist country, you will see that production usually goes up at first. This is usually because they only have to manufacture simple products. Once their economies become more advanced, they tend to decline due to the innefficiency of their complex economy.

The Government will tend to boost certain industries with huge spending increases, for example Nazi Germany with the autobahn. However the economy soon runs into diminishing returns because constant adding of capital does nothing to growth without innovation.

4. I have a newsflash for you: every system educates their people to believe that their system is the end all be all. I love this one though. When people fanatically believe in capitalism it's because they are right; if they fanatically belive in communism, it's because they are brainwashed. You really are naive to believe that.

I say that because communist countries have all created state schools where communism is taught to little children. In fact part of Marx's ten point plan discusses the need for compulsory state education to achieve communism. He must have agreed that no free thinking individual would accept communism.

And state schools don't teach people to fanatically believe in capitalism - or at least the one I went to didn't (in fact it was more of the opposite, and I can show you a leftist essay my sister was made to write at her high school if you want proof).

6. :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry, I just found it funny that you are lecturing me and don't even know what number comes next. :lol: :lol: This does actually happen though. Obviously, the black 'market' is opposed to socialism and thusly the dictatorship of the proletariat mut destroy it, just as they must destroy all bourgeois influences to prevent counter-revolution.

Man, you are a grasping at straws - you bring up that I made an insignificant typo twice in your argument. How stupid is that?

And you just proved my theory that communism needs to brainwash people into it's ideology (because everyone has to fanatically believe in communism for it to 'work' - yet it still doesn't work).

5. :lol: Well, besides the fact that the USSR spent less of it's GDP on the military in the Cold War years, this is the general trend with the downfall of socialism. However, since they decided to have a revolution more than a hundred years too early, it is to be expected that they fail. However, they can still teach about the practical applications of socialist economic theory. Need I remind you that the first democracy eventually turned into an oligarchy? That the second democracy turned into a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. Or that the third democracy turned into an empire under Nabolione Buonaparte? Did people say that democracy would never work? Hell yeah they did. Were they right? You tell me.

Democracy doesn't work. And all those instances proved it. Democracy is certainly not a capitalist concept - having a majority force its decisions on you (or have a majority 'elect' someone to use force against you).

And how come communism didn't work because it was '100 years too early'?

Nyder

9th April 2004, 15:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:06 PM
For god's sake nyder, put down that copy of atlas shrugged and open your eyes to the real world.
Says he who only talks in rhetoric and idealistic fantasy.

Nyder

9th April 2004, 15:32

Originally posted by Hoppe+Apr 9 2004, 11:16 AM--> (Hoppe @ Apr 9 2004, 11:16 AM)
New [email protected] 8 2004, 09:09 PM
When will this guy realize that even if we proved that Communism does work, he will still be against it?
New Tolerance,

You cannot prove it will work simply because you have history against you. However, and I don't know if Nyder agrees, if people voluntarily choose to establish a commune it can perfectly well work. Anyhow, most don't believe that something which works in a small group, say a family, can be "forced" onto a whole society. It's as simple as that. [/b]
Good point, Hoppe.

Interesting that many sort of different 'collectives' exist in capitalist societies. For example, there are communes (more prevalent during the 60s and 70s), clubs with fees that are re-distributed, volunteer and charitable organisations, estates where there are body corporate fees for maintenance of the entire property, etc. The difference is that there is freedom of association. No one forces me to live in a collective.

New Tolerance

9th April 2004, 17:49

Nyder, what would you label yourself as?

Don't Change Your Name

9th April 2004, 18:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 02:57 PM
It wasn't around for very long. Probably the same with those other revolutions.
Usually because they were shot by either those forces who defend "the individual right to private property" or those "vanguard parties that will bring the glorious socialist revolution". Next time we should steal their damn guns.

That's what tends to happen when a Government 'gives' themselves such immense power over people. A communist government would seek to expand itself by nationalising industries and so forth.

'Capitalist parties' - you realise that this is a contradiction in terms do you?

What's a libertarian party then? Oh, I see, your true intentions is hiring some Pinochet-styled mercenary to defend private property.

However this is the problem of government, not corporations.

It's a problem of BOTH.

As for 'they control the media' - you will find a lot less variety in radio/tv/print media in communist countries.

Trust me, you don't want to keep discussing this kind of things with leninists.

Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Castro - need I go on?

If Hitler and Mussolini were socialists then I'm Ayn Rand.
And by the way, if that isn't your real intention, then according to Hitler he wasnt shooting his own people, because, after all, he represent that "Aryan state/nation", that would kill those exploiting invaders and criminals, which happened to be, by some "natural" reason, the "Jewish race". Mussolini mostly killed leftists and foreigners.

And what can you tell us about Pinochet, Videla, Galtieri, Batista, Franco, and so many others?

Yes but communist literature has been freely available in western countries. Only Governments could ban literature, not capitalists. Try finding any books on capitalist type literature in North Korea.

Really? Well, it seems that the capitalist fascist military dictatorship Argentina suffered from 1976-1983 (it didnt last until 1984 fortunately) prohibited Marx's works, but the so called "conservative liberals" (those pro-capitalist loving idiots) enjoyed that period and supported the dictatorship becuase it defended their private property.

And if you think people here supports the Kimist dictatorsip you are very wrong. And you are wrong too if all the people here wants to burn the capitalist books.

Som

9th April 2004, 20:10

The Paris Commune was a brief socialist, reformist government in Paris from March 26 to May 30, 1871. This government was only made possible through a civil uprising of all revolutionist trends within Paris. - from Wikipedia

The Paris Commune was a socialist government. It was 'shot down' by government forces of the Versailles Army. It wasn't around for very long. Probably the same with those other revolutions.

Yep.

Whole of paris in that supposedly ludicrous workers rebellion of yours.

Spains a better example really.

They just have a nasty habit of getting shot.

That's what tends to happen when a Government 'gives' themselves such immense power over people. A communist government would seek to expand itself by nationalising industries and so forth.

Immense power over people? or just immense power over those who hold the majority of private property?

You have to be less vague here, what immense power are they giving themselves?

The policies of this hypothetical communist party could be towards any type of socialism, nationalizing could very well take a back seat to worker collectives, and different levels of local ownership.

Understandably, since an expansive government would be much more costly to pay for.

Costly in the sense of social services, sure, and even countries with mostly capitalist economies manage it, even without the equitable wealth distribution that we propose.

A transition to an economic democracy is hardly immense power over people, especially since they voted for it overwhelmingly.

Again you're going to have to do better to show where the gunshots start.

Because I doubt people are going to vote themselves higher taxes and theft of personal property.

The scandinavians managed to vote themselves higher taxes for decades, and they weren't even out to destroy it, and when capitalism falls in on itself enough for people to bring about socialism, you'll find few property holders who'd have anything touched, hardly enought to be the majority.

Then again, all this on the premise that capitalist governments would even allow a socialist party to be elected, instead of by revolution, which is probably unlikely, considering their past record on it.

Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Castro - need I go on?

Well, if you'd like to keep going on about people that are irrelevent with what im talking about, feel free.

Yes but communist literature has been freely available in western countries. Only Governments could ban literature, not capitalists. Try finding any books on capitalist type literature in North Korea.

As for 'they control the media' - you will find a lot less variety in radio/tv/print media in communist countries.

Heres one for you: Communism or spcialism or anarchism, or whatever vague leftwing ideology I might be supporting here, since I've not actually said just what I support and your just running off assumptions, is not a single set of ideas.

Thats right, Its about as accurate for you to associate me with what you refer to as communist countries as it is for me to associate you with Pinochet.

But of course you like shooting people for profit, no? clearly you think that military dictatorships are just joyful playgrounds, right? and since we've never seen one of your randian libertarian holes, its doesn't even exist as a set of ideas and you are all just a bunch of dictator loving goons.

'Capitalist parties' - you realise that this is a contradiction in terms do you? Or are you another ignorant commie who doesn't understand the difference between 'government' and capitalism?

Parties that support Capitalism, you know, parties that aren't socialist.

So, is that a contradiction in terms, or can I go vote for the libertarian party and get my socialist revolution that way?

Eastside Revolt

10th April 2004, 01:30

"So long as surplus value is wrung out of the workers by the operations of the perfectly natural laws of capitalist production, just so long will the equally natural social consequences of unemployment and destitution continue to appear…."
-John Mclean

187

10th April 2004, 18:55

"*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has become a dictatorship
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had mass poverty
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has experienced massive oppression
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has had a very low standard of living
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has seen huge amounts of political violence
*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms (even North Korea)"

The only reason Capitalist nations don't crumble under these things is through socialistic reforms.

You need balance in societies...The "communist" nations that fell apart for the reasons you listed didn't have that balance.

Osman Ghazi

10th April 2004, 23:01

So your logic is like this: we should make the lives of working people more miserable so that they vote themselves a communist/socialist government (or all 'rise up' simultaneously and overthrow the 'capitalists'). Were you born this retarded?

Most people do live comfortable lives in 'western' economies, even with a theiving, looting and oppressive government on their back. Why would these people all of a sudden drop everything and follow the dictum of Marx?

Actually, people like you is what will immiserate the proletariat. Through increasing automation of factories, the working class will be left either un- or under-employed.
That is why they will revolt.

Oh, dear.. People don't consent to paying for these things - it is payed for by 'tax'.

The US doesn't have socialist type policies? Look at all the welfare programs, subsidies, national services, etc. You really are deluded.

Maybe you've never heard of the social contract but we've all signed it. People as a general rule of thumb see taxes as necessary to daily life. As for U$ welfare 'programs' (last I checked there was just one: welfare) they are the worst of any industrialized nation. Subsidies are hardly socialist. More corporatist really.

The Government will tend to boost certain industries with huge spending increases, for example Nazi Germany with the autobahn. However the economy soon runs into diminishing returns because constant adding of capital does nothing to growth without innovation.

Actually, it isn't because of a lack of innovation at all. Who says that they can't simply aquire the industrial techniques of other countries? It is simply that it was never applied, for a variety of reasons, the most common being the fear of change that social t governments have.

I say that because communist countries have all created state schools where communism is taught to little children. In fact part of Marx's ten point plan discusses the need for compulsory state education to achieve communism. He must have agreed that no free thinking individual would accept communism.

And state schools don't teach people to fanatically believe in capitalism - or at least the one I went to didn't (in fact it was more of the opposite, and I can show you a leftist essay my sister was made to write at her high school if you want proof).

Yes and capitalist countries have all taught capitalism to little kids. What's yer point? I'll tell you what, if your sisters essay said that we should smash the state then maybe I'm wrong here but it was probably just liberal, which is hardly 'leftist'.

Man, you are a grasping at straws - you bring up that I made an insignificant typo twice in your argument. How stupid is that?

And you just proved my theory that communism needs to brainwash people into it's ideology (because everyone has to fanatically believe in communism for it to 'work' - yet it still doesn't work).

Hey at least I can count to ten, buddy. And no, I didn't prove that they need to brainwash them. What I said was that they need to kill or imprison the ones who are violently opposed to their ideology. So does any gov that wishes to last.

Democracy doesn't work. And all those instances proved it. Democracy is certainly not a capitalist concept - having a majority force its decisions on you (or have a majority 'elect' someone to use force against you).

Well, good thing that no one will actually listen to your point of view then, you t.

And how come communism didn't work because it was '100 years too early'?

It requires the immiseration of the proletariat. Otherwise, it will probably not work in the country where it is tried and definately not in the entire world.

Face it. The reason you are opposed to communism is because you come from money and you wouldn't want for everyone to have a peice of your ill-gotten gains. ing objectivists.

Nyder

11th April 2004, 03:08

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 10 2004, 11:01 PM

Actually, people like you is what will immiserate the proletariat. Through increasing automation of factories, the working class will be left either un- or under-employed.
That is why they will revolt.

No they won't. They will find some other way to earn income. Not by using violence, but through trade. People will adapt just like they have always done. When tractors replaced field workers we didn't have continuing mass unemployment - people simply did something else.

Maybe you've never heard of the social contract but we've all signed it. People as a general rule of thumb see taxes as necessary to daily life. As for U$ welfare 'programs' (last I checked there was just one: welfare) they are the worst of any industrialized nation. Subsidies are hardly socialist. More corporatist really.

I never signed a mythical 'social contract'. People only pay taxes because they are forced to.

Subsidies are income re-distribution, made by taking someone's property (their income). It doesn't matter who benefits, it is against property and voluntary trade. Corporations may vie for these subsidies, but only because they are trying to lower their production costs. But again this is a problem with Government.

Actually, it isn't because of a lack of innovation at all. Who says that they can't simply aquire the industrial techniques of other countries? It is simply that it was never applied, for a variety of reasons, the most common being the fear of change that social t governments have.

Because public enterprises are much less concerned about efficiency and are generally very slow to introduce foreign innovations. Remember their is no competition so why would they bother?

Yes and capitalist countries have all taught capitalism to little kids. What's yer point? I'll tell you what, if your sisters essay said that we should smash the state then maybe I'm wrong here but it was probably just liberal, which is hardly 'leftist'.

Why would the state educate children in voluntary exchange and free trade when it is against their very existence?

And forget the term 'leftist' - liberals are just another group advocating Government expansion/intervention in certain areas, but not in others (just like conservatives).

Hey at least I can count to ten, buddy. And no, I didn't prove that they need to brainwash them. What I said was that they need to kill or imprison the ones who are violently opposed to their ideology. So does any gov that wishes to last.

Last I looked there was still a communist party in America, Australia and the UK.

And I wouldn't call a communist society 'utopia' if it has to kill and imprison those who don't believe in their ideology.

And how come communism didn't work because it was '100 years too early'?

It requires the immiseration of the proletariat. Otherwise, it will probably not work in the country where it is tried and definately not in the entire world.

Face it. The reason you are opposed to communism is because you come from money and you wouldn't want for everyone to have a peice of your ill-gotten gains. ing objectivists.

And your 'immerseration of the proletariat' is a deluded fantasy. It's not going to happen.

The reason I'm opposed to communism is that I believe that people should be free to live without being enslaved by a collective.

Nyder

11th April 2004, 03:11

Originally posted by New [email protected] 9 2004, 05:49 PM
Nyder, what would you label yourself as?
Capitalist Anarchist, with some libertarian and objectivist philosophy.

New Tolerance

11th April 2004, 03:19

Capitalist Anarchist, with some libertarian and objectivist philosophy.

How do you think everything should work? Personally.

Give me a brief description.

GUTB

11th April 2004, 08:23

The current debate strikes me as being quite juvenile. Why hammer away at the same tired line of plodding, rightest clap-trap we've been deluged with since Day One? The progressive simply has to accept the class view of the struggle, and such arguments are put in their proper perspective and we immidiately see how intellectually compromised they are, not even worth the time of day.

The long, winding, bumpy road to the final empancipation of the slaves was likewise paved with the small, petty, sarcastic commentary of the penut gallery. And so is the continuing empancipation of women. And so, again, is the continuing empancipation of the worker.

Misodoctakleidist

11th April 2004, 11:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:11 AM
Capitalist Anarchist, with some libertarian and objectivist philosophy.
How can a market economy possibly be stateless? Surely the richest person or group of people will form a de facto state, if there are any rivals they would probably hire mercinaries.

Osman Ghazi

11th April 2004, 14:21

No they won't. They will find some other way to earn income. Not by using violence, but through trade. People will adapt just like they have always done. When tractors replaced field workers we didn't have continuing mass unemployment - people simply did something else.

Oh how lovely. The workers are just going to cast a magical spell and bam! jobs for everyone. When farms became machanized there was mass unemployment you dumbass. They only managed to find work in the factories. Where are they going to go now? Are they all just going to go work at McDonald's? What about when fast food restaurants start to replace workers with machines, in the name of efficiency and profits? Where will the workers go then? Nowhere. They will just sit around and be poor until the time comes to rise up and take back what they've built.

never signed a mythical 'social contract'. People only pay taxes because they are forced to.

Well, governments need taxes and most people think they need a government, so most people think they need taxes. So it isn't because they are forced to.

Because public enterprises are much less concerned about efficiency and are generally very slow to introduce foreign innovations. Remember their is no competition so why would they bother?

This is true to a point but look at the early Soviet Union. Their military simply stole the plans for the Christie Fast Tank and made their own on exactly the same model. So we see that they can absorb forign innovations if necessary. The problem is that they don't but I think that there are ways to easily correct this.

Why would the state educate children in voluntary exchange and free trade when it is against their very existence?

And forget the term 'leftist' - liberals are just another group advocating Government expansion/intervention in certain areas, but not in others (just like conservatives).

Well the gov hardly teaches objectivism. They teach them not 'pure' capitalism but the mix that they have. So the gov teaches either liberalism or conservatism.

Last I looked there was still a communist party in America, Australia and the UK.

And I wouldn't call a communist society 'utopia' if it has to kill and imprison those who don't believe in their ideology.

Well if you don't dispose of the elements that will cause trouble for you, they'll cause trouble. Every government thrives on stability and this is the only way to ensure it. I'm not talking about throwing every joe capitalist in the clink. The people who have to be eliminated are the ones who keep stacks of assault rifles so that they can defend 'their' property.

And your 'immerseration of the proletariat' is a deluded fantasy. It's not going to happen.

The reason I'm opposed to communism is that I believe that people should be free to live without being enslaved by a collective.

No, I explained to you why it is not. The reason I'm opposed to capitalism is that I believe people should be free to live without being enslaved by rich people and the market.

AC-Socialist

11th April 2004, 18:51

Originally posted by Nyder+Apr 11 2004, 03:11 AM--> (Nyder @ Apr 11 2004, 03:11 AM)
New [email protected] 9 2004, 05:49 PM
Nyder, what would you label yourself as?
Capitalist Anarchist, with some libertarian and objectivist philosophy. [/b]
So a complete liberatrian? Now THAT is ridiculous. At least anarcho-communists and syndicalists retain that law will exist becuase people will not be selfish! You mean to say that you dont even need government with capitalism to protect private property!?

BOZG

13th April 2004, 21:49

What about people like Lula who have taken steps towards socialism?

Obviously you haven't read much about Lula.

Professor Moneybags

14th April 2004, 15:19

For god's sake nyder, put down that copy of atlas shrugged and open your eyes to the real world.

You mean the world where communism doesn't work ? That is reality.

Professor Moneybags

14th April 2004, 15:22

If Hitler and Mussolini were socialists then I'm Ayn Rand.

Then I guess you're Ayn Rand.

Professor Moneybags

14th April 2004, 15:31

It requires the immiseration of the proletariat. Otherwise, it will probably not work in the country where it is tried and definately not in the entire world.

Face it. The reason you are opposed to communism is because you come from money

I oppose communism and I don't "come from money".

and you wouldn't want for everyone to have a peice of your ill-gotten gains. ing objectivists.

Still churning out cheap rationalisations to justify grand theft, I see.

Osman Ghazi

14th April 2004, 15:45

I oppose communism and I don't "come from money".

That's because you are a retard.

Still churning out cheap rationalisations to justify grand theft, I see.

You're up to much the same task, i see.

Professor Moneybags

14th April 2004, 15:47

Well the gov hardly teaches objectivism.

It's too politically incorrect for them.

The people who have to be eliminated are the ones who keep stacks of assault rifles so that they can defend 'their' property.

(It's wrong when "imperialism" does this, and okay when you do it. Sounds like polylogic.)

So to sum up; hand over the loot, or we'll shoot you and arrogate your property. Communism : The ideology of the armed robber.

The reason I'm opposed to capitalism is that I believe people should be free to live without being enslaved by rich people and the market.

You're not. The market is process, not a "ruler".

Professor Moneybags

14th April 2004, 15:50

That's because you are a retard.

Out comes the ad hominem; the classic sign of a feeble mind.

You're up to much the same task, i see.

If you would care to explain what it is I have allegedly stolen and off whom, I'd be happy to listen.

DarkAngel

14th April 2004, 16:25

There are more capatitalist countries that have failed then communist countries.

Misodoctakleidist

14th April 2004, 17:29

Prof moneybags is such a stereotypical objectivist;

"blah blah blah theft blah blah polylogicism blah blah collectivism"

How long will it be untill we hear the old "capitalism doesn't put a gun to the head of the worker"? Is there some kind of objectivist phrase-book becuase you all use exactly the same wording.

Revolt!

14th April 2004, 17:31

I disagree DarkAngel. Capitalism allows a certain degree of freedom for most but more importantly creates the wealth and power of the few so as to keep any country from creating a successful revolution. Capitalism has been very successful in creating an illusion of necessity . Wealth is in the hands of the few and is tantalisingly close to the poorer people in society.

Communism has never been properly implemented in an industrialised country. All countries who claimed to be 'communist' in the 20th century were Marxist-Leninist, a bastardisation of Marxist theory.

Robert Edward Lee

14th April 2004, 17:40

There are more capatitalist countries that have failed then communist countries.

Likewise, there have been more Capitalist countries that have suceeded that Communist ones. Any 'Communist' countries that are still out there are now adopting market reforms.

I believe that only one thing will convince people that Communism can work. People need to see what the alternative has done to them. That one 'thing' I'm speaking of? Nuclear Holocaust.

Revolt!

14th April 2004, 17:44

What charming Capitalist dogma. A better future is for the taking, people just need to be educated.

Robert Edward Lee

14th April 2004, 17:47

Capitalist Dogma and I haven't commented on economics at all? Interesting, I suppose.

I also presume you don't believe in the Dialectical Pocess?

Professor Moneybags

14th April 2004, 18:33

Prof moneybags is such a stereotypical objectivist;

"blah blah blah theft blah blah polylogicism blah blah collectivism"

I criticize polylogic, because it leads to double standards and hipocracy which tends to filter out into the political beliefs of the person using it. Do you use it ?

And what's this sudden obsession with objectivism ?

"How long will it be untill we hear the old "capitalism doesn't put a gun to the head of the worker"?"

You are implying that it does ?

"Is there some kind of objectivist phrase-book becuase you all use exactly the same wording."

Perhaps your critics repeat the same arguments because you refuse to listen.

Misodoctakleidist

14th April 2004, 19:05

Perhaps your critics repeat the same arguments because you refuse to listen.
Actually i refute them then they move on to the next objectivist sound-bite then eventually run out and restate their first argument. The last time i tried to have a mature debate on an objectivist forum, the administrator deleted my posts and then said that anyone who questioned ayn rand would have their posts deleted.

Nyder

15th April 2004, 08:13

Originally posted by AC-Socialist+Apr 11 2004, 06:51 PM--> (AC-Socialist @ Apr 11 2004, 06:51 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:11 AM

New [email protected] 9 2004, 05:49 PM
Nyder, what would you label yourself as?
Capitalist Anarchist, with some libertarian and objectivist philosophy.
So a complete liberatrian? Now THAT is ridiculous. At least anarcho-communists and syndicalists retain that law will exist becuase people will not be selfish! You mean to say that you dont even need government with capitalism to protect private property!? [/b]
No, because people can defend their own property.

The private sector has its own security force and they vastly outnumber the police and do a lot more to protect owner's property. People can protect their homes and upgrade their security systems. Private investigators can be hired to do even more detailed investigations then what resources the police have.

Without 'law' people aren't just going to lie down and let people invade their property rights.

Nyder

15th April 2004, 08:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:25 PM
There are more capatitalist countries that have failed then communist countries.
Name one.

Professor Moneybags

15th April 2004, 08:49

Actually i refute them then they move on to the next objectivist sound-bite then eventually run out and restate their first argument.

Very few of you have actually refuted anything. Give an example.

The last time i tried to have a mature debate on an objectivist forum, the administrator deleted my posts and then said that anyone who questioned ayn rand would have their posts deleted.

So what ? I can name a dozen communist forums with a similar mindset.

Which one was it ?

Misodoctakleidist

15th April 2004, 09:28

so what ? I can name a dozen communist forums with a similar mindset.

Which one was it ?

It was Capitalism Forum (http://www.capitalismforum.com)

I just think it sums up the attitude of objectivists, when you tell them wh they're wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears and cream "la la la la." A good example is Nyder who's been on this forum for quite a while, he still refuses to accept that communism is stateless even though he's been told a million times and for the last week he's been going on about how the labour value theory "is bunk" but doesn't seem to even know what it is, when promted to explain he just posted an irrelevent passage of text from an encyclopedia.

Professor Moneybags

15th April 2004, 12:49

It was Capitalism Forum (http://www.capitalismforum.com)

Why, what did you post ? Usually, they only ban trolls.

I just think it sums up the attitude of objectivists, when you tell them wh they're wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears and cream "la la la la."

That's the pot calling the kettle black; I'd like to hear where you think these people have gone wrong and why.

cubist

15th April 2004, 13:06

crapitalists, i ask you one thing, would cuba be a better socialist state if the US hadn't placed embargos on it.

anyways, we are all tools of the same shitty system its just some silly people are happy to be exploited under the pretence of oneday being rich,

you can't save those that don't want saving but you can open there eyes to the broader unedited horizon of reality.

Osman Ghazi

15th April 2004, 13:07

(It's wrong when "imperialism" does this, and okay when you do it. Sounds like polylogic.)

Imperialists do it for self-aggrandizement. Communists do it fo rthe aggrandizement of society. That is enough of a difference to make one wrong and the other right.

Why, what did you post ? Usually, they only ban trolls.

I went there one time and refuted a guy's argument that the USSR had killed 100 million of it's own citizens and they banned me. They are complete retards. They can't understand that it is physically impossible to kill half the population of your own country. Not to mention that only 61 million people were killed in WWII.

Misodoctakleidist

15th April 2004, 14:03

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2004, 12:49 PM
Why, what did you post ? Usually, they only ban trolls.
They define a troll as anyone who disagrees with them regardless of how polite or honest they are.

That's the pot calling the kettle black; I'd like to hear where you think these people have gone wrong and why.

If you want to discuss objectivism, pm me.

STI

15th April 2004, 20:09

Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Castro - need I go on?

This statement can be easily debunked and you know it.

The following statement debunks your statements about Hitler and Mussoliini:

From the politicalcompass.org FAQ:

Why is Hitler slightly right ? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.
Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country - political, ethnic, religious - whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

This one will debunk the rest (just replace 'USSR' with whatever 'communist' country you want to attack):

Socialism, real and fake
One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state.

To refer to the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control -- and to convert the workforce into what they called a "labor army" under the command of the leader. In any meaningful sense of the term "socialism," the Bolsheviks moved at once to destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted since.

These developments came as no surprise to leading Marxist intellectuals, who had criticized Lenin's doctrines for years (as had Trotsky) because they would centralize authority in the hands of the vanguard Party and its leaders. In fact, decades earlier, the anarchist thinker Bakunin had predicted that the emerging intellectual class would follow one of two paths: either they would try to exploit popular struggles to take state power themselves, becoming a brutal and oppressive Red bureaucracy; or they would become the managers and ideologists of the state capitalist societies, if popular revolution failed. It was a perceptive insight, on both counts.

The world's two major propaganda systems did not agree on much, but they did agree on using the term socialism to refer to the immediate destruction of every element of socialism by the Bolsheviks. That's not too surprising. The Bolsheviks called their system socialist so as to exploit the moral prestige of socialism.

The West adopted the same usage for the opposite reason: to defame the feared libertarian ideals by associating them with the Bolshevik dungeon, to undermine the popular belief that there really might be progress towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic institutions and concern for human needs and rights.

If socialism is the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, then sane people will say: not for me. And if that's the only alternative to corporate state capitalism, then many will submit to its authoritarian structures as the only reasonable choice.

With the collapse of the Soviet system, there's an opportunity to revive the lively and vigorous libertarian socialist thought that was not able to withstand the doctrinal and repressive assaults of the major systems of power. How large a hope that is, we cannot know. But at least one roadblock has been removed. In that sense, the disappearance of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism, much as the defeat of the fascist powers was.

That was taken from "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" by Noam Chomsky.

See, you've really got no leg to stand on when it comes to labelling Hitler and co. socialists.

Professor Moneybags

16th April 2004, 06:55

If you want to discuss objectivism, pm me.

No, I want it discussed here, out in the open.

---------------------

Imperialists do it for self-aggrandizement. Communists do it fo rthe aggrandizement of society. That is enough of a difference to make one wrong and the other right.

Ah, so because one gang are doing it for a (irrationally) "selfish" reason and your lot are doing it for a "altruistic" reason, you're right and they're wrong ? In other words, any attrocity is acceptable provided the one doing it is not the beneficiary.

I went there one time and refuted a guy's argument that the USSR had killed 100 million of it's own citizens and they banned me. They are complete retards.

I don't blame them. The only retard is you for trying to apologise for it; even the Russian government admitted to starving it's own people.

Osman Ghazi

16th April 2004, 12:35

Ah, so because one gang are doing it for a (irrationally) "selfish" reason and your lot are doing it for a "altruistic" reason, you're right and they're wrong ? In other words, any attrocity is acceptable provided the one doing it is not the beneficiary.

No, just this particular atrocity and only if it is in the best interests of the people.

I don't blame them. The only retard is you for trying to apologise for it; even the Russian government admitted to starving it's own people.[QUOTE]

Are you a retard? Oh, wait, I already know the answer to that.
Listen, it is physically impossible to kill 100 million people in a country of less than 200 million. Without exceptions. I realize that they killed a lot of people but it was not more than 10 million.

Professor Moneybags

17th April 2004, 11:23

No, just this particular atrocity and only if it is in the best interests of the people.

Thanks. It's rare you get someone that willing to lay their cards out on the table.

Are you a retard? Oh, wait, I already know the answer to that.
Listen, it is physically impossible to kill 100 million people in a country of less than 200 million. Without exceptions. I realize that they killed a lot of people but it was not more than 10 million.

"Only" 10 Million ? Lol.

AC-Socialist

17th April 2004, 12:14

:huh: But he didn't say "only". Dont tell me you capitalist types like to bend, or even create, your own truth!

Nyder

19th April 2004, 11:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:09 PM

Why is Hitler slightly right ? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.
Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country - political, ethnic, religious - whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

There are many fallacies represented in this passage from www.politicalcompass.org. Firstly, the notion that fascism is distinct from socialism. Fascism is basically about control. There are many definitions pertaining it to be some narrow definition of a government, and it could even be described solely of the political movement described by Mussolini. Some people think fascism means dictatorship, an extreme nationalism (on the part of the Government - which probably means greater control) or oppression. I think it's safe to put all these definitions under extreme Government control. So in the sense that the 'transition' period to communism or socialism would need extreme government power in order to work, fascism is not so distinct from socialism.

Remember that communism and socialism are not about freedom of choice to implement their inherent methods, they are about 'do it this way, or else'.

As for the comparison between Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet - that is absurd. Since when did Bill Gates use force and to achieve his success?

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin.

What's that supposed to mean? I guess to them (and most lefties) right = capitalism. Since Hitler was 'right wing', that means capitalists are 'right wing'. This is just definition highjacking using meaningless terms.

Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

So 'government contracts' are capitalist? 'Price controls' are capitalist?

All this proves is that Hitler looked after the people he wanted to look after. So did Stalin - I doubt he and his buddies lived in squalor like the rest of the population they suppressed. Hitler may not have been as extreme as Stalin, but he was definitely on the same scale as him in terms of collectivism.

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

They were socialist in terms of Marx's ten-point plan. They were socialist according to these definitions:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The Nazis manifesto (posted earlier by me) and their economic plan was socialist. What more evidence do you need?

And remember (as you go on about this for the rest of your post) the state has to have total control in order for socialism to be implemented. The workers are not going to all of a sudden 'rise up' and take away ownership of the 'factories' (eh? - what factories?). Remember Marx was writing from the Industrial revolution and he really didn't have a clue how complex capitalism would become. So the only way is to legislate total worker control - backed up by the police, military and the courts is this only feasible.

If you deny this you are only kidding yourself.

Osman Ghazi

19th April 2004, 12:42

Nyder, don't be a fucking tool. Every historian since WWII has called Nazi Germany 'state capitalist'. By that, Imean that the businesses were privately owned but state directed. Last I checked, there aren't any privately owned businesses in socialism. Also, socialism is not nationalistic, as nationalism defies reason.

As for the comparison between Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet - that is absurd. Since when did Bill Gates use force and to achieve his success?

Ummm... probably since he was sued $12 billion for 'waging corporate war' on his rivals.

So the only way is to legislate total worker control - backed up by the police, military and the courts is this only feasible.

If you deny this you are only kidding yourself.

The only way capitalism can exist is to legislate total owner control - backed up by the police, military and the courts is this only feasible.

If you deny this you are only kidding yourself.

See, I can make blanket statements with no proof too.

DaCuBaN

19th April 2004, 13:10

The Nazis manifesto (posted earlier by me) and their economic plan was socialist. What more evidence do you need?

:rolleyes:

yes, they were the National Socialist Party and they DID come from socialist beginnings. Hitler however, was just a raving looney as far as I am concerned and brought an unsavoury element into the party - tarnishing their name forever.

Every historian since WWII has called Nazi Germany 'state capitalist'

Hitler and chums again - taking a promising (if extremist) party and throwing racial prejudice into the bargain.

The only way...is to legislate total...control - backed up by the police, military and the courts is this only feasible

The same means to a different end. What a shock. :D :rolleyes:

It's rare you get someone that willing to lay their cards out on the table.

Really? I thought it was only rare to get assholes laying their cards out on the table.

Ah, so because one gang are doing it for a (irrationally) "selfish" reason and your lot are doing it for a "altruistic" reason, you're right and they're wrong ? In other words, any attrocity is acceptable provided the one doing it is not the beneficiary

condoning and understanding are two very different things. I don't think anyone could condone the holocaust for example, but at that time in history in germany, it's easy to understand how those feelings came about. Hell, with hinesight had we known what would happen if we saved the jews and gave them a country I really think we in the UK would have sat out.

Devils Advocate btw before you flame me :P

STI

19th April 2004, 19:57

So in the sense that the 'transition' period to communism or socialism would need extreme government power in order to work, fascism is not so distinct from socialism.

The transition would be about economic control. It wouldn't be control of the public and a restriction of civil liberties and the like.

Remember that communism and socialism are not about freedom of choice to implement their inherent methods, they are about 'do it this way, or else'

Not true. It's about people coming together, rejecting exploitation, and building better lives for each other and themselves. You seem to think that there will be a half dozen communists who will 'force' communism on everybody else. It will be the entire working class (entire=vast majority).

As for the comparison between Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet - that is absurd. Since when did Bill Gates use force and to achieve his success?

They weren't comparing Bill Gates to Pinochet. They were comparing the comparison between Hitler and any real socialist to a comparison between Bill Gates and Pinochet.

What's that supposed to mean? I guess to them (and most lefties) right = capitalism. Since Hitler was 'right wing', that means capitalists are 'right wing'. This is just definition highjacking using meaningless terms.

If you'd spent much time on politicalcompass.org, you'd know that "right" and "left" are being used as economic terms. Capitalists are 'right wing' when it comes to economics, just as Hitler was. It has nothing to do with 'hijacking using meaningless terms'. It's not saying that capitalists are right wing because Hitler was right wing. It's saying, put syllogistically:
All right-wingers are economic capitalists
Hiter was a right- winger
Therefore, Hitler was an economic capitalist.

So 'government contracts' are capitalist? 'Price controls' are capitalist?

All this proves is that Hitler looked after the people he wanted to look after. So did Stalin - I doubt he and his buddies lived in squalor like the rest of the population they suppressed. Hitler may not have been as extreme as Stalin, but he was definitely on the same scale as him in terms of collectivism.

If you had read the other writing, you would have seen that Stalin wasn't a socialist either. It's an irrelivant example.

'Government Contracts' imply exchange. Exchange does not exist in socialism. Neither do prices. So yes, they are capitalist.

The Nazis manifesto (posted earlier by me) and their economic plan was socialist. What more evidence do you need?

Anybody can say that he's a socialist. Actions speak louder than words.

And remember (as you go on about this for the rest of your post) the state has to have total control in order for socialism to be implemented. The workers are not going to all of a sudden 'rise up' and take away ownership of the 'factories' (eh? - what factories?). Remember Marx was writing from the Industrial revolution and he really didn't have a clue how complex capitalism would become. So the only way is to legislate total worker control - backed up by the police, military and the courts is this only feasible.

Actually, according to Earnest Mandel (who knows A LOT more about Marxism than you), Marx's writings (Das Kapital, more specifically), are even truer now than when they were writen.

The state does not have to have total control. The WORKERS do. Why can the workers not take control of the factories (you know, the ones owned by their bosses)?

You really don't know enough about socialism to coherently criticize it, and this has been shown by the nature of your post.

Afterthought: Notice how Nyder hasn't responded yet? He can't seem to argue when one of us "bleeding heart lefties" uses "fact" and not "emotion" to argue (which we never do, but you get the point).

DaCuBaN

20th April 2004, 08:39

The state does not have to have total control. The WORKERS do. Why can the workers not take control of the factories (you know, the ones owned by their bosses)?

I often wonder how many people have actually worked under a completely useless boss before, and of that percentage how many decided that a commune of the workers could do it so much better.

Nyder

24th April 2004, 08:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 07:57 PM

The transition would be about economic control. It wouldn't be control of the public and a restriction of civil liberties and the like.

So you think that 'economic control' could be achieved without the barrel of a gun? Well you are emphatically wrong. Taking people's wealth is called robbery. Generally people don't like being robbed, so you will need force and/or threat of force to achieve it. Hence the state.

When I ruminate about communism I say that it always gravitates towards dictatorship. I'm not saying that the idea of communism dictates this. Rather, the stages to reach communism include a dictatorship. For example, tell me how long Cuba and North Korea have been living under dictatorships?

Don't tell me that you are delusional enough to believe that there will be some kind of peaceful revolution and people will all of a sudden drop everything and become communists. It's just not going to happen.

Not true. It's about people coming together, rejecting exploitation, and building better lives for each other and themselves. You seem to think that there will be a half dozen communists who will 'force' communism on everybody else. It will be the entire working class (entire=vast majority).

Going by historical evidence, the only time communism has come close to happening, is when some despot takes control of the country and reduces it to poverty.

If you'd spent much time on politicalcompass.org, you'd know that "right" and "left" are being used as economic terms. Capitalists are 'right wing' when it comes to economics, just as Hitler was. It has nothing to do with 'hijacking using meaningless terms'. It's not saying that capitalists are right wing because Hitler was right wing. It's saying, put syllogistically:
All right-wingers are economic capitalists
Hiter was a right- winger
Therefore, Hitler was an economic capitalist.

Hitler was not a capitalist. Let me refresh your memory as to what capitalism actually means:

Private property
Free markets
Voluntary trade

The Nazis violated private property (they closed many Jewish businesses, took away the land of the farmers, controlled people's income, etc). They did not trade with voluntary means - it was either 'give me money or I'll kill, imprison or rob you'. They enacted forced trade.

Remember, if someone does not satisfy the above criteria, you cannot call them capitalists.

Therefore, the US government are not capitalist, neither are the British monarchy, organised criminals sometimes go against this principle (such as the mafia and protection money). A business who survives from the Government restricting the competition I would not call capitalist either.

As for 'right-wing' and 'left-wing'. Yes, they are meaningless terms because they don't really explain much. They also mean different things to different people, and sometimes they are altered for political expediency. I prefer measuring economics based on the degree of government intervention. An economy with no government intervention is a free economy. One with total control is a command economy. Mid-way is a mixed economy.

If you had read the other writing, you would have seen that Stalin wasn't a socialist either. It's an irrelivant example.

I'm confused now, does socialism mean state control or is that communism? Or are they both 'stateless'?

'Government Contracts' imply exchange. Exchange does not exist in socialism. Neither do prices. So yes, they are capitalist.

It is not free exchange. If I point a gun to your head and demand that you give me your wallet, is that capitalism? No, it is not.

And how can exchange not exist under socialism? Do you expect everyone to produce their own food, clothes, houses, etc?

Anybody can say that he's a socialist. Actions speak louder than words.

Yes indeed. Marx didn't practice communism, in fact he was a businessman. Oh the irony..

The state does not have to have total control. The WORKERS do. Why can the workers not take control of the factories (you know, the ones owned by their bosses)?

Because that would be considered unlawful and they would be arrested. They would need a change in legislation giving them full control, which means that the Government would have to expand to enforce it.

Afterthought: Notice how Nyder hasn't responded yet? He can't seem to argue when one of us "bleeding heart lefties" uses "fact" and not "emotion" to argue (which we never do, but you get the point).

Oh bullshit.

Nyder

24th April 2004, 09:09

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 19 2004, 12:42 PM

Nyder, don't be a fucking tool. Every historian since WWII has called Nazi Germany 'state capitalist'. By that, Imean that the businesses were privately owned but state directed. Last I checked, there aren't any privately owned businesses in socialism. Also, socialism is not nationalistic, as nationalism defies reason.

'State capitalism' is a contradiction in terms. It's like 'black white', 'happy sad' or 'up down'. Let me explain, capitalism means the following:

Private property
Free markets
Voluntary exchange

No, I would not say that the Nazis fit this criteria.

The only way capitalism can exist is to legislate total owner control - backed up by the police, military and the courts is this only feasible.

This is total fucking bullshit, and I'll explain why.

The police, military and courts simply do not have the resources to protect every piece of private property, and even if they did, it would cost an absolute fortune and it is likely that there would be unequal protection as well.

So people have security guards, personal protection, technology (such as alarm systems, computerised tracking devices, etc) to protect themselves from being robbed or assualted. Actually, the number of private security guards actually outnumbers the police and they now perform the majority of property protection.

You seem to think that without the government, people would be defenceless but that is simply not true.

Professor Moneybags

24th April 2004, 17:25

Nyder, don't be a fucking tool. Every historian since WWII has called Nazi Germany 'state capitalist'.

Argument by authority (assuming it is right, which it isn't). Nazi Germany was fascist; government controlled, privately owned. Since ownership without control renders the ownership pretty much null and void, it's a long-winded way of saying communism. There is no such thing as "state capitalism", just as there is no such thing as "authoritarian anarchism".

Ummm... probably since he was sued $12 billion for 'waging corporate war' on his rivals.

How naive. Disobeying the government's fiat laws does not equate to initiating force against someone.

The only way capitalism can exist is to legislate total owner control - backed up by the police, military and the courts is this only feasible.

That's right. The owner has (or should have) total control over his property.

You seem to think that there will be a half dozen communists who will 'force' communism on everybody else. It will be the entire working class (entire=vast majority).

And there lies the problem. "Entire" is not "vast majority". What about the minority who don't agree ?

Capitalists are 'right wing' when it comes to economics, just as Hitler was.

Hitler was hardly a promoter of laissez faire. His economics were Keynesian and rather centrist.

If you had read the other writing, you would have seen that Stalin wasn't a socialist either.

Stalin invented socialism.

Osman Ghazi

24th April 2004, 22:15

'State capitalism' is a contradiction in terms. It's like 'black white', 'happy sad' or 'up down'. Let me explain, capitalism means the following:

Private property
Free markets
Voluntary exchange

No, I would not say that the Nazis fit this criteria.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained.

Hmm... it seems to me that the means of production were privately owned. Doesn't seem to say anything about free markets or voluntary exchange, which are relative and subjective concepts anyway. So, it would seem that according to the dictionary, Nazi Germany was capitalist.

This is total fucking bullshit, and I'll explain why.

The police, military and courts simply do not have the resources to protect every piece of private property, and even if they did, it would cost an absolute fortune and it is likely that there would be unequal protection as well.

So people have security guards, personal protection, technology (such as alarm systems, computerised tracking devices, etc) to protect themselves from being robbed or assualted. Actually, the number of private security guards actually outnumbers the police and they now perform the majority of property protection.

You seem to think that without the government, people would be defenceless but that is simply not true.

You seem to miss the point that I was just turning around what you said earlier, but okay. Firstly, we live in a society where total owner control is legislated, altough workers do also have some rights.
Second, your whole premis makes no sense. you are against the use of force, yet instead of allowing the government a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, you want to make it possible for everyone and his brother to use force against anyone they want. Realistically, if people are allowed to have private armies, they will use them, especially in a society where they have a lot of material wealth to gain by it.

Argument by authority (assuming it is right, which it isn't). Nazi Germany was fascist; government controlled, privately owned. Since ownership without control renders the ownership pretty much null and void, it's a long-winded way of saying communism. There is no such thing as "state capitalism", just as there is no such thing as "authoritarian anarchism".

No such thing as state capitalism? So historians just make this stuff up, do they? So communism is private ownership with state control, is it? Well, you're certainly rewriting the ideology book. Private ownership is the only requirment for capitalism.

Second, your argument that ownership without control is not real ownership is an interesting, if false, notion. The means of production are used by the owners to create capital for themselves. That is the whole point of owning something that produces wealth: to produce wealth for yourself. In Nazi Germany, the means of production were used to create capital for the people who owned them. How is that any different from what the owners would have done had they had more control? Answer: it isn't.

How naive. Disobeying the government's fiat laws does not equate to initiating force against someone.

Ummm.. yeah, it does. He violated the govs monopoly on the use of force.

That's right. The owner has (or should have) total control over his property.

Why should the owner have total control? What makes one person worthier than anoother to have control of something? This assumes that the owner 'deserves' what he owns. Personally, I don't believe that such a concept exists.

And there lies the problem. "Entire" is not "vast majority". What about the minority who don't agree ?

They will be imprisoned or shot if we cannot be sure of their loyalty. By that, I mean that if they attempt armed resistance against the government, they will face the same fate as any rebels. Don't try to tell me this is wrong. What about the rebels in Fallujah?

Stalin invented socialism.

Really? You never cease to amaze me.

Dan_Canadian

25th April 2004, 02:33

Yes, I can see that everyone who has tried to change your views have failed, very good. I'm not supporting either side here, but I'd like to ask a few questions. Why do you think they havn't changed your views? This applies for EVERYONE, maybe next time you read a post, instead of quickley thinking about how you can prove it wrong and make yourself seem right, listen, read it, and try to understand where that person is coming from and what they are trying to tell you. Conversations would be a lot more productive if both sides did a little more listening and a lot less trying to prove the other person wrong.

Remember, anyone can fact check and look up pointless stats to prove another person wrong. The smartest will stop, listen, and think of what the other person is trying to say. Even if that person is your worst enemy, and completly disagrees with you on everything, you should listen to them. It takes a strong person to do such a thing, listening to everyone is important, even if you still won't agree with them. It's something not enough people in today's society do.

Nyder

26th April 2004, 02:05

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 24 2004, 10:15 PM

Osman Ghazi,

Hmm... it seems to me that the means of production were privately owned. Doesn't seem to say anything about free markets or voluntary exchange, which are relative and subjective concepts anyway. So, it would seem that according to the dictionary, Nazi Germany was capitalist.

Private ownership means ownership that arrived through voluntary exchange and free trade. A dictator who takes people's property is not respecting private ownership.

There is also a distinct difference between private and public property.

You seem to miss the point that I was just turning around what you said earlier, but okay. Firstly, we live in a society where total owner control is legislated, altough workers do also have some rights.

Earlier I said that one way of defence was to have a collectivised military. I certainly don't concede that it is the only way a society can work to defend itself from external attack. Internally, the private sector already does a pretty good job of defending its interests.

Second, your whole premis makes no sense. you are against the use of force, yet instead of allowing the government a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, you want to make it possible for everyone and his brother to use force against anyone they want. Realistically, if people are allowed to have private armies, they will use them, especially in a society where they have a lot of material wealth to gain by it.

I am opposed to a monopoly on force because that can be used to create the state. The state could not exist without a monopoly on force.

Also, no one can 'make it possible' for everyone to use force against eachother. People will rob, assualt and murder no matter what. So all you can do is increase your protective measures against them. And a private security force with technology are much more effective then government police (I know because I work in the security industry).

As for private armies, in a corporate world you would have to look at their justification for existing. Remember, they are there to make profits. Plundering others may induce short term gains but long term they will not be able to sustain themselves, and other people will likely resist their efforts. And it's not likely that anyone is going to invest or buy into their company if they go around invading people.

No such thing as state capitalism? So historians just make this stuff up, do they? So communism is private ownership with state control, is it? Well, you're certainly rewriting the ideology book. Private ownership is the only requirment for capitalism.

I already explained how you would arrive at private ownership.

The state is not privately onwed, it's publically owned.

Second, your argument that ownership without control is not real ownership is an interesting, if false, notion. The means of production are used by the owners to create capital for themselves. That is the whole point of owning something that produces wealth: to produce wealth for yourself. In Nazi Germany, the means of production were used to create capital for the people who owned them. How is that any different from what the owners would have done had they had more control? Answer: it isn't.

So you are saying it is no different if someone takes over my business and produces the same result rather then me having control over my business and producing the same result? Even if the intervention did benefit me, it is not private ownership in the sense that I have full control over the business. If you are talking about subsidies then that is taking someone elses income and giving it to someone else, which also goes against private ownership.

Why should the owner have total control? What makes one person worthier than anoother to have control of something? This assumes that the owner 'deserves' what he owns. Personally, I don't believe that such a concept exists.

Well if the owner had control it means he/she invested their money into it. Generally, if you spend a lot of money to buy something, you expect to own it.

They will be imprisoned or shot if we cannot be sure of their loyalty. By that, I mean that if they attempt armed resistance against the government, they will face the same fate as any rebels. Don't try to tell me this is wrong. What about the rebels in Fallujah?

Wonderful.

STI

26th April 2004, 02:46

So you think that 'economic control' could be achieved without the barrel of a gun? Well you are emphatically wrong. Taking people's wealth is called robbery. Generally people don't like being robbed, so you will need force and/or threat of force to achieve it. Hence the state.

Don't be so fucking stupid. The masses would have to be in direct support of the revolution. It's not like 24 people would "steal" everybody's possessions and "force" them onto the masses. You're right, the bosses would have their factories taken away from them. It's called a revolution, not a tea party.

When I ruminate about communism I say that it always gravitates towards dictatorship. I'm not saying that the idea of communism dictates this. Rather, the stages to reach communism include a dictatorship. For example, tell me how long Cuba and North Korea have been living under dictatorships?

Cuba and N.K aren't communist, as you'd be able to see if you'd read the exerpt from the Chomsky book and actually thought about it, but no, we couldn't POSSIBLY try to LEARN something about communism.

The 'stages' to communism have never been attempted because REAL communism has never been attempted. You have no leg to stand on.

Don't tell me that you are delusional enough to believe that there will be some kind of peaceful revolution and people will all of a sudden drop everything and become communists. It's just not going to happen.

I've already addressed this. Don't be so redundant.

Going by historical evidence, the only time communism has come close to happening, is when some despot takes control of the country and reduces it to poverty.

REAL communism hasn't been attempted, only Marxism-Leninism. As explained in the Chomsky piece, this isn't real communsim. Beat.

Hitler was not a capitalist. Let me refresh your memory as to what capitalism actually means:

Private property
Free markets
Voluntary trade

The Nazis violated private property (they closed many Jewish businesses, took away the land of the farmers, controlled people's income, etc). They did not trade with voluntary means - it was either 'give me money or I'll kill, imprison or rob you'. They enacted forced trade.

Remember, if someone does not satisfy the above criteria, you cannot call them capitalists.

Therefore, the US government are not capitalist, neither are the British monarchy, organised criminals sometimes go against this principle (such as the mafia and protection money). A business who survives from the Government restricting the competition I would not call capitalist either

Well, you clearly couldn't argue against my syllogism, so you went on and on and on about the conclusion. This doesn't work, but i'll shoot you down either way.

"Left" and "Right" are measures of economic standpoint. Hitler was an economic rightist. You have no leg to stand on. Just because Nazi Germany wasn't "Pure Capitalism" doesn't mean it's not capitalism. You know what we mean when we say "capitalism". Granted, Hitler is not as far right economically as, say, Bush, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

I'm confused now, does socialism mean state control or is that communism? Or are they both 'stateless'?
What is Communism? (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6362&hl=)
What is Socialism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6365&hl=what+is+socialism\)?

QUOTE
They will be imprisoned or shot if we cannot be sure of their loyalty. By that, I mean that if they attempt armed resistance against the government, they will face the same fate as any rebels. Don't try to tell me this is wrong. What about the rebels in Fallujah?

Wonderful.

It's what happens after revolutions. American Revolutionaries killed loyalists after the revolution. This caused a lot of loyalists to run to Canada. It's how Toronto was originally populated, actually.
Owned.

It is not free exchange. If I point a gun to your head and demand that you give me your wallet, is that capitalism? No, it is not.

And how can exchange not exist under socialism? Do you expect everyone to produce their own food, clothes, houses, etc?

It's not socialism, either. It's fascism (which is NOT socialism, as has been proven). Exchange would not exist in socialism because all resources would be produced and consumed as part of a collective. It wouldn't be "You have an apple, I have an orange, so give me your apple and a dollar and I'll give you my orange", it would be "There's a fruit collective. You need an apple. Take an apple."

Yes indeed. Marx didn't practice communism, in fact he was a businessman. Oh the irony..

What's your point? Actually, I thought it was Engles who was a businessman, but whatever. It doesn't make them any less right or wrong. We're not into hero-worship (most of us, anyway). We believe in what they wrote (most of it, anyway).

Because that would be considered unlawful and they would be arrested. They would need a change in legislation giving them full control, which means that the Government would have to expand to enforce it.

No, the government wouldn't have to get involved. People would just simply not let them. They'd say "you're trying to start a business and control the means of production? Bullshit you are. We're not going to let you, cappieboy" then they'd probably do some sort of sit-in and stop him from building the factory (all hypothetical, of course).

Oh bullshit.

Seriously, man. It took you like a week to respond. And the fact that you reacted the way you did only makes it clear how right I was. :D

But that's all for tonight. It's past my bedtime. More to come, though.

Professor Moneybags

26th April 2004, 07:24

Doesn't seem to say anything about free markets or voluntary exchange, which are relative and subjective concepts anyway.

How is voluntary exchange "subjective" ? Either it is or it isn't.

No such thing as state capitalism? So historians just make this stuff up, do they?

Erm...yeah they do. An attempt to distance themselves from the failiure of communism by saying "That wasn't REEEEEEEEAL communism."

Private ownership is the only requirment for capitalism.

What nonsense. Voluntary exchange and free markets are also necessary, otherwise there would be contradictions.

What makes one person worthier than anoother to have control of something?

He had a right to his profits, just as you have a right to your wages. In both cases, wealth has been earned by the person who created it, not someone who didn't.

cubist

26th April 2004, 13:42

What nonsense. Voluntary exchange and free markets are also necessary, otherwise there would be contradictions.

when free markets exist i will believe you and volutnary exchange, pah,

inside the staes choice of sale and purchase maybe free but for third world countries the WTO and IMF have certainly prooved this isn't the case,

momocultivation restricts the market, and money lent to them means they must sell, doesn't sound free to me,

and why is capitalism so good, when is capitalism going to start looking out for the welfare of humans?

STI

26th April 2004, 20:00

And there lies the problem. "Entire" is not "vast majority". What about the minority who don't agree ?

The minority who do not agree would either:
a)Get the fuck out
or
b)Be executed.

Executions are common practice after ANY revolution. American revolutionaries killed loyalists after the revolution was over. It's what happens after revolutions.

Hitler was hardly a promoter of laissez faire. His economics were Keynesian and rather centrist.

He was a Centre-Right economist. Check www.politicalcompass.org
Paul Martin was left of him (if not around the same). He's definately not a socialist. All of the economic right, all of the economic centre, and a large portion of the economic left couldn't be considered 'socialist'.

Stalin invented socialism

Um, NO. Socialism was 'invented' before Stalin was even born. (See: The Principles of Communism by Engles).

Erm...yeah they do. An attempt to distance themselves from the failiure of communism by saying "That wasn't REEEEEEEEAL communism."

If you'd get your tiny capitalist head out of your big capitalist ass for enough time to read the Chomsky article, you'd see how, say, the USSR didn't follow actual communist principles, right from the get-go. It's not apologetics or trying to distance ourselves. We're looking at what people do, then judging whether or not they're socialist (which Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and co. were not.

He had a right to his profits, just as you have a right to your wages. In both cases, wealth has been earned by the person who created it, not someone who didn't.

That statement is what the communism/capitalism debate is essentially about. Communists don't believe the boss has the right to profits. Capitalists do. Don't throw opinions around as if they're fact.

DaCuBaN

26th April 2004, 20:11

this is a little off topic but...

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms

So tell me.... what countries are NOT in debt. I'd be really interested to see :P :D

STI

26th April 2004, 20:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:11 PM
this is a little off topic but...

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms

So tell me.... what countries are NOT in debt. I'd be really interested to see :P :D
AMERICA, of course. Nothing is wrong with America, except those evil humanist socialist Democrat liberal homosexuals are trying to molest all their kids and take away all their guns and give basic rights to homosexuals and women. How dare those bastards! :rolleyes:

DaCuBaN

26th April 2004, 20:25

so the 3 milliad (it's not a damn billion i tell ye!) dollars you owe don't exist then?

That'd be some trick of accounting for that much to dissapear ;)

*EDIT*
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Apparently my original sources were rather outdaded... :rolleyes:
try $7,135,539,992,298.41 as of 04/23/2004

Pawn Power

26th April 2004, 21:48

wow Nyder sucks
i think he is either a right wing bastard or a CIA fat cat tring to bring us down from the inside
LONG LIVE REVOLUTION, IT IS STILL IN THE HOPPLESS HEARTS OF THE WORKING CLASS!!!!

GET THE FUCK OUT Nyder

STI

26th April 2004, 23:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:48 PM
wow Nyder sucks
i think he is either a right wing bastard or a CIA fat cat tring to bring us down from the inside
LONG LIVE REVOLUTION, IT IS STILL IN THE HOPPLESS HEARTS OF THE WORKING CLASS!!!!

GET THE FUCK OUT Nyder
I'm not sure that was the most intelligent thing you could have said. :rolleyes:

so the 3 milliad (it's not a damn billion i tell ye!) dollars you owe don't exist then?

That'd be some trick of accounting for that much to dissapear

What's all this 'YOU' garbage? I'm certainly not an American, nor have I ever been! How dare you label me an American! :angry:

DaCuBaN

27th April 2004, 00:05

:lol: sorry should've looked at your political compass and realised you couldn't be :D :lol: nah, it was your use of the word billion - i thought the americans didn't actually owe that much - i assumed (what a shock) that they only owed a few milliad rather than a *true* few billion

Seriously though.... who the hell owns all this money?

STI

27th April 2004, 00:12

ME! Seriously, though, what's all this "Billions" talk. The number
$7,135,539,992,298.41 looks to me like more than Seven trillion.

DaCuBaN

27th April 2004, 01:23

Well see it's like this:

1 (one)
1,000 (thousand)
1,000,000 (million)
1,000,000,000 (milliad)
1,000,000,000,000 (billion)

But some dumn yankee decided:

1 (one)
1,000 (thousand)
1,000,000 (million)
1,000,000,000 (billion)
1,000,000,000,000 (trillion)

and since then everyone just trailed along with that. Even the BBC has given in and started using the american classification of the milliad and billion. But I shall not <_< :D :lol:

Professor Moneybags

27th April 2004, 11:57

The minority who do not agree would either:
a)Get the fuck out
or
b)Be executed.

How lovely.

He was a Centre-Right economist. Check www.politicalcompass.org
Paul Martin was left of him (if not around the same). He's definately not a socialist. All of the economic right, all of the economic centre, and a large portion of the economic left couldn't be considered 'socialist'.

Hitler was most definitely a welfare statist, just like his intellectual heir Bismark.

If you'd get your tiny capitalist head out of your big capitalist ass for enough time to read the Chomsky article, you'd see how, say, the USSR didn't follow actual communist principles, right from the get-go.

They didn't adhere to them, because it would have been a disaster. (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/marframe.htm)

It's not apologetics or trying to distance ourselves. We're looking at what people do, then judging whether or not they're socialist (which Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and co. were not.

Is that the reason Noam Chomsky tried to whitewash the Cambodian holocaust ?

When are you going to realise that the premises of communism do not lead to the utopian results you desire ?

That statement is what the communism/capitalism debate is essentially about. Communists don't believe the boss has the right to profits. Capitalists do. Don't throw opinions around as if they're fact.

If wealth "only" comes from labour...yet you need to seize a "means of production" in order to do it. Why do you need "means of production" if "labour" is the only value ? Why can't you make your own, if that is not the case ?

The real answer is no; Labour is not the cause of wealth- but just one of many factors.

Osman Ghazi

27th April 2004, 14:24

Hitler was most definitely a welfare statist, just like his intellectual heir Bismark.

I'm not sure how Bismark could inerit anything from Hitler considering he was dead, but okay. First of all, Bismark believed in giving welfare to the people as a means to shut them up and continue depriving them of political rights. Hitler did the same thing.

Is that the reason Noam Chomsky tried to whitewash the Cambodian holocaust ?

When are you going to realise that the premises of communism do not lead to the utopian results you desire ?

When did he try to do that? As a matter of fact, he brought up the fact that there were about 7,000 inches of periodicals about Cambodia, while in East Timor, America's ally Indonesia was doing the same thing but only getting 100 or so inches of coverage.

If wealth "only" comes from labour...yet you need to seize a "means of production" in order to do it. Why do you need "means of production" if "labour" is the only value ? Why can't you make your own, if that is not the case ?

The real answer is no; Labour is not the cause of wealth- but just one of many factors.

Ummm, are you retarded? The means of production don't create anything in and of themselves. They are tools. You could have all the tools you want, but in the end, you still need labour to get anything from them.

STI

27th April 2004, 21:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:23 AM
Well see it's like this:

1 (one)
1,000 (thousand)
1,000,000 (million)
1,000,000,000 (milliad)
1,000,000,000,000 (billion)

But some dumn yankee decided:

1 (one)
1,000 (thousand)
1,000,000 (million)
1,000,000,000 (billion)
1,000,000,000,000 (trillion)

and since then everyone just trailed along with that. Even the BBC has given in and started using the american classification of the milliad and billion. But I shall not <_< :D :lol:
Blah. I thought "milliad" was a typo for "million". It's not just Yanks who use "billion" and "Trillion", though. I'm from Canada and I hadn't heard of "milliad" until yesterday.

How lovely

I already explained that such is the common practice after EVERY revolution, but you didn't seem to feel the need to read that before spouting off a response. No worries, though.

Hitler was most definitely a welfare statist, just like his intellectual heir Bismark

Check out politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org) and see where Hitler is. I dare you. You'll be wrong and will have no leg to stand on. I've owned you and it's time to face the music (as performed by Propagandhi).

And sure, let's say he was a welfare statist, just for the sake of beating you again. There's a difference between welfare statism and socialism. You seem to have abandoned your assertion that Hitler was a socialist due to an intense session of ownage by the lefties on the board.

Is that the reason Noam Chomsky tried to whitewash the Cambodian holocaust ?

When are you going to realise that the premises of communism do not lead to the utopian results you desire ?

1) Chomsky is not a communist.
2) Chomsky does not represent the entire left
3) Give me a link to where he did such a thing
4) Pol Pot didn't revolt on Marxist principles. I don't know specifics, but, odds are, Marxist-Leninist ones. The Chomsky article expains why Marxism-Leninism is not communism.

They didn't adhere to them, because it would have been a disaster.

How do you know? Hell, how did THEY know? If you'd read the article, you would have known that Lenin and Trotsky dismantled the soviets, the factory councils, and almost every organ of popular control right after taking power.

Ummm, are you retarded? The means of production don't create anything in and of themselves. They are tools. You could have all the tools you want, but in the end, you still need labour to get anything from them

I think it's safe to say that the right has no shortage of tools :lol:

If wealth "only" comes from labour...yet you need to seize a "means of production" in order to do it. Why do you need "means of production" if "labour" is the only value ? Why can't you make your own, if that is not the case ?

Goods cannot be produced without a means of production. That's why they're called the means of production It's not the means of production which creates value, it's the labour embodied in the commodity which does. For example, if I were to make a shoe which took 2 hours to make, then another shoe using the same tools (the means of production), which took 4 hours to make, the second pair would have double the value of the first pair (ignoring the value embodied in the raw matereals).

Professor Moneybags

28th April 2004, 07:39

Ummm, are you retarded? The means of production don't create anything in and of themselves. They are tools. You could have all the tools you want, but in the end, you still need labour to get anything from them.

So that's an admission that labour is worthless without a means of production. And who provided this "means of production" to begin with and why do you feel that you are entitled to it ? Did labour produce it ? Sorry, that's circular reasoning.

And fool can provide labour.

Professor Moneybags

28th April 2004, 07:48

Goods cannot be produced without a means of production. That's why they're called the means of production

It's the same circular reasoning Ghazi employed :

Goods cannot be produced without means of production.
Who produced the means of production ?

It's not the means of production which creates value, it's the labour embodied in the commodity which does. For example, if I were to make a shoe which took 2 hours to make, then another shoe using the same tools (the means of production), which took 4 hours to make, the second pair would have double the value of the first pair (ignoring the value embodied in the raw matereals).

So if I bought a car that took 5 hours to make and then my neigbour bought a car that took 5 hours to make and then someone spent an hour smashing his up with a sledge hammer, then my neighbours car is more valuable because more labour went into it ?

The absurdity of this in practice doesn't even bear commenting on. Just wait till I get round to sorting out the 'was Hitler a socialist' debate later on.

Nyder

28th April 2004, 08:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:11 PM
this is a little off topic but...

*EVERY country that has tried communism or socialism has bankrupted itself and has been forced to take on market reforms

So tell me.... what countries are NOT in debt. I'd be really interested to see :P :D
I said bankrupt, not in debt.

Incidentally, most western governments have or have had large debts that always fall back on their 'citizens' to pay them off.

Guest1

28th April 2004, 09:13

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 02:48 AM
Goods cannot be produced without means of production.
Who produced the means of production ?
Irrelevant, who colonized and built the USA? That didn't stop Americans from taking it from them.

I think this explains it quite nicely:

Hoppe

28th April 2004, 09:33

That is a stupid cartoon and clearly shows lack of economic knowledge. Every company starts with an investment.

Osman Ghazi

28th April 2004, 12:51

I sold products and bought them

That would seem to be referring to the investment.

It's the same circular reasoning Ghazi employed :

Goods cannot be produced without means of production.
Who produced the means of production ?

And you say we are stupid. The first means of production was the land itself. It produces food, metal, wood, et alia for human consumption. Then, the owners of the means of production (the feudal nobility) used their wealth created by the means of produciton to create new means of production so that they could make more money. Who produced it though? Why the working class were the ones who actually made these things. That is why it belongs to them.

lucid

28th April 2004, 12:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:33 AM
That is a stupid cartoon and clearly shows lack of economic knowledge. Every company starts with an investment.
That is a rediculous cartoon. The people have their heads buried deep in their arses.

Hoppe

28th April 2004, 13:13

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 28 2004, 12:51 PM
That would seem to be referring to the investment.

No, certainly not. Before there were even products or workers the entrepreneur had to have either savings or borrowings to acquire the machine. When the public valued his products so much that he couldn't produce enough by himself, he decided to hire someone and agreed to pay him a certain amount. Even if he hired the workers immediately then still the machine would have been paid with his savings or borrowed money.

You have been brainwashed by that bourgeois Keynes.

STI

28th April 2004, 13:41

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 07:39 AM

Ummm, are you retarded? The means of production don't create anything in and of themselves. They are tools. You could have all the tools you want, but in the end, you still need labour to get anything from them.

So that's an admission that labour is worthless without a means of production. And who provided this "means of production" to begin with and why do you feel that you are entitled to it ? Did labour produce it ? Sorry, that's circular reasoning.

And fool can provide labour.
There's a difference between "worth" and "value". Labour has no value unless it produces something (wealth of whatever form). It cannot do so without a means of production. The means of production aid in creating use-value, not exchange-value.

So if I bought a car that took 5 hours to make and then my neigbour bought a car that took 5 hours to make and then someone spent an hour smashing his up with a sledge hammer, then my neighbours car is more valuable because more labour went into it ?

No, because the smashed-up car has no use-value. Something without a use-value cannot have an exchange-value.

Goods cannot be produced without means of production.
Who produced the means of production ?

God.

Seriously, thuogh, sometimes the means of production are naturally-occurring (for example, monkeys use twigs to catch ants. The twigs are the means of production, but uccur without human, or in this case, monkey, labour). Other times, the means of production are created by other means of production. Other times still, the means of production are creatable without a means of production (i.e. I can make a quill-pen, which is the means of production for the book I'm writing. The pen required human labour, but no previously-existing means of production).

I said bankrupt, not in debt.

Incidentally, most western governments have or have had large debts that always fall back on their 'citizens' to pay them off.

No communist government has become barkrupt, as no communist government has ever existed (as explained in the Chomsky article nobody seemed to take the time to read).

Guest1

28th April 2004, 13:56

His investment was owning the machines.
He got that by selling products.
The workers made those products.

I thought it wasn't too hard to understand.
As for savings or borrowed money, that's the fairy tale of the American dream I guess. Maybe way back when, that was something common, but right now the majority of corporations are massive corporations that were started by corporations, or people made rich through corporations, or people inheriting money from someone who exploited his labourers.

Professor Moneybags

28th April 2004, 13:58

No, because the smashed-up car has no use-value. Something without a use-value cannot have an exchange-value.

But hold on a minute, last post you said labour-time was the deciding factor on value. I guess it isn't.

Seriously, thuogh, sometimes the means of production are naturally-occurring (for example, monkeys use twigs to catch ants. The twigs are the means of production, but uccur without human, or in this case, monkey, labour). Other times, the means of production are created by other means of production. Other times still, the means of production are creatable without a means of production (i.e. I can make a quill-pen, which is the means of production for the book I'm writing. The pen required human labour, but no previously-existing means of production).

But who created them ? Someone had to invent and think up how make a pen, is that not labour ? Is working out and implementing the mass production of pens not labour ?

STI

28th April 2004, 14:04

But hold on a minute, last post you said labour-time was the deciding factor on value. I guess it isn't

I assumed you knew enough about the LTV to know that there is no exchange-value without use-value. After all, you are debunking it wonderfully.

...Guess I was wrong, though.

How about we make a deal. You read the first section of Das Kapital (That's as far as I've read). If you still have questions about it, I'll gladly attempt at answering them.

But who created them ? Someone had to invent and think up how make a pen, is that not labour ? Is working out and implementing the mass production of pens not labour ?

You're right, thinking is labour, if it produces exchange-value. It doesn't require any means of production.

Professor Moneybags

28th April 2004, 14:08

Irrelevant, who colonized and built the USA? That didn't stop Americans from taking it from them.

That's a poor anology. Are you trying to tell me that the factories and skyscrapers were already here when the colonists arrived ? Land is not a means of production without the knowledge to make use of it. Who descovered that knowledge ? Are they not entitled to their share of the rewards too ?

I think this explains it quite nicely:

How did he buy the machines when products must be produced and sold in order to pruchase them ?

STI

28th April 2004, 15:18

How did he buy the machines when products must be produced and sold in order to pruchase them ?

Well, I already explained this, but you didn't seem to think reading it would have been a good idea. That's the problem with debating you people: you don't care enough to read what we've written, then bring up the same already-addressed points until we're all blue in the face.

Hoppe

28th April 2004, 15:25

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2004, 01:56 PM
His investment was owning the machines.
He got that by selling products.
The workers made those products.

I thought it wasn't too hard to understand.
As for savings or borrowed money, that's the fairy tale of the American dream I guess. Maybe way back when, that was something common, but right now the majority of corporations are massive corporations that were started by corporations, or people made rich through corporations, or people inheriting money from someone who exploited his labourers.
No you economic illiterate. It's no chicken/egg situation. Every massive corporation was started by someone making an investment. So no matter how far you go back in history the investment always comes before the worker.

And if they have been made rich and start a new company, still the investment comes first. And from what well comes the investment: savings.

That's no fairytale, it happens everywhere. For all we know this boss was first "exploited" by McDonald, saved whatever remained after tax, and decided to invest his savings in a new company because he saw a great opportunity.

lucid

28th April 2004, 15:56

I love how these commies think that every business in the US is a Microsoft or Coca Cola.

Guest1

28th April 2004, 16:21

Maybe so, but the point is, they have become obsolete.

Imagine a dictator, invests in the country, works to lead it to high living standards, industrialization, etc... but he's a dictator. So one day, the time comes for him to step aside and the people take charge. The people whose tax dollars helped him make the country, the people who actually worked and built highways and the like. While he sat on his ass and gave orders.

Is it a reasonable argument to say he should be allowed to remain because he invested his own money way back when?

Or do you think the people should set up a democratic government regardless of what he thinks, or his previous investment, even if it means doing it by force?

Hoppe

28th April 2004, 19:37

I can also come up with examples but what has a dictator got to do with someone who starts his own little shop? The latter certainly can only get money if he produces goods or services people are willing to pay for. The dictator has an infinite stream of taxes.

GUTB

28th April 2004, 20:03

THis has become absurd.

From whence do you illiterates think "money" comes? The sky, strapped to the decks of heavenly ships sent by God to his chosen capitalists? Sprouting from money trees? Materialized by the enlightened thoughts of capital magnates? Money is a construct of civilization as a useful means to facilitate trade. "Borrowing" in the modern sense came from early capitalists figuring out a scam of inventing IOUs and treating those like "money" with the expectation that the extra wealth created with the IOUs could pay for themselves and then some. This was made true by the fact that what passes through the laborer's hands has value added to it. In other words, the laborer produces wealth. The capitalist just controls wealth, and seeks to concentrate wealth to himself to increase his profits. The entire system of modern margin-loaning and paper money was created and enforced to facilitate this processes. At no point during the process of the capitalist creating fake wealth and then turning it into real wealth is the capitalist indespensible. At no point is it required for a CEO to make a million dollars for signing the papers that permits the expenditure of a bunch of fake investment dollars to build a facotry.

But the worker is not optional. The worker must labor at the facotry, or there can be no wealth. The worker must mine the mateirals, refine them, ship them, and construct them. The entire enterprise can ONLY happen with the full compliance of the worker. The worker simply doesn't NEED the owner to sign a peice of paper to tell him when he can and can't work. In other words, the owner is simply a leech off of the worker's labor. Period.