Capatilsm = Facism

[1936]

Ofcourse many on this site belive that capatilst society is facist soceity, and there 100% right. But these "restricted members" get the impresion that this ideology isnt capatilst atall.

But capatilsm is ALWAYS an eventual manisfestation into facism.

Capatilsm is a society in wich the individuls revolve around the goal of geting to the top of the hierachy within there society, wich is based on power, money and what not. Therefor under capatilsm one must climb above the ones beneath to attain a higher status then others. Once at the top it becomes that they must keep everyone else down so that they dont lose there comfy seat at the top. This is how capatilsm OPPRESSES.

But eventually this individual (who will now be an authatarian within this society) will take it upon themself to use society to get higher then there current position wich they attained by corupting and manipulating corporation and inheritance etc.

This individual will therfor begin to oppress the society in order to benefit hes individual profit, and the needs of the ones beneath him/her, will be geting less and less important. Until we attain a state inwich an individual corrupts the society to hes own gain and benefit.

You will begin to lose your rights so that this individual authoratarian can profit more. And therfor your very fundamental birth rights will be attacked as in not to attain the position to become top dog and otherthrow the current dictator.



This is facism.

[Son of the Revolution]

It doesn't even have to be one person it can be a group of people, like in the U$A. (Its amazing how ignorant people can be, politicians waffle on about how free the world is when the worlds only superpower is already a fascist dictatorship.)

[kidicarus20]

You're pretty much right, capitalism is equal to fascism in a lot of ways, but it is actually more like Fascism's predecessor. Fascism is an outgrowth of two causes; one, the seriously critical condition of capitalism; the other, the reaction to the threat of communism. It is basically an economic movement. Its general characteristics are typical of those on the right: a glorification of the state; the abolition of democracy (this is essential); and an attempt to make a nation self-sufficient by a complete regulation of its economic life. (Government for the corporations is one example).

It is a lot how Noam Chomsky, and other thinkers, have explained it: large corproations are fascist because of their reliance on the state to protect them and keep them in power (federal subsidies and corporate welfare, the demolition of homes for corporate landscaping, etc.). Also, the United States has preferred fascist countries over democratic ones (especially in the third world) even though the US is supposed to be free-market, free, and democratic (an add combination).

World War II put an end to the fascist states of Italy and Germany and their satellites, although there are still some others in existence. The threat of fascism remains, also, in many countries which are at president capitalist democracies.

[Loknar]

I agree with this assessment of capitalism. big companies are a scary thing as we see in 3rd world countries.


this is why i a m not a die-hard capitalist and I support unions %100 and government regulations over business. I am thankful that monopolies in america are illegal.

[NovelGentry]

While I'm not sure I'd consider the conclusions of the original poster wrong, there are obvious things that are strange. He seems to relate fascism to the authoritarian oppression only, while this is an aspect of fascism, there is much more to the ideology than evil dictatorship and flexing your power on people for your own ends.

There is a much more accurate way to realize why capitalism evolves into a counterpart of fascism. One need only to look at the purpose fascism serves, and in light of economic downturn, the doors swing open to make fascism a meaningful ideology for sustaining capitalism.

In order to uphold the state (truly the most holy and untouchable idea under fascism) you create enemies. These enemies of the state are the target of the oppressive state itself, as well as all those willing to buy the ideology.

In a world where capitalism's downturn is met most nicely with strong patriotism, war to increase economic momentum in varying forms, and the unwavering protection mechanisms put in place by the state both onshore, and offshore, there's little doubt that fascism is a common candidate for any capitalist nation to move towards.

[Zingu]

I agree with Gent....on some parts.

Fascism, in pure theory, is actually inheretly anti-capitalist of sorts.

Fascists claim an alternate way out of capitalism other than Socialist Internationalism; the oppisite; Socialist Nationalism (National Socialist? Nazi? Anyone get it?).

As gent said; Fascism is focused on extreme nationalism; where class relations are harmonized by the government. Capitalism; in some form is still kept around; but ONLY operated in NATIONAL INTEREST. Capitalists no longer just go by profit incentive; they have a so called "duty" to the state now.
So think of Fascism as regimented capitalism; workers and employers are organized in state unions that harmonize class relations; the free market continues to work; but under the heavy hand of the government and works, as I said earlier in "national interest". Sort of like a antihill everyone has a duty.

Now just coat that with extreme doses of nationalism to create a strong national and cultural identity.

Fascism is a slippery thing; it denouces Communism; but also Capitalism, it denouces conservatives and calls for revolution; but at the same time endorses the church and old traditional vaules.

[t_wolves_fan]

Hold on there professor, you make quite a few generalizations:


Ofcourse many on this site belive that capatilst society is facist soceity, and there 100% right. But these "restricted members" get the impresion that this ideology isnt capatilst atall.

Capitalism does not equate to fascism. If we want to figure out why, we should take the words of fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini:

"Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect."

Capitalism is by definition influenced by economic drive, since it is an economic system. Fascism, as we saw under Mussolini and Hitler, was founded not on economic gain or superiority of Italy or Germany but on the "superiority" of their cultures, history, race, and their leaders.

Further, Mussolini states:

""The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans.... If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government." "

Capitalism and classical liberalism (individualism) go hand-in-hand. Capitalism favors limited government, free-markets, and property rights. Obviously, Mussolini's idea that people are cogs of the state is in direct opposition to the tenets of capitalism.



Capatilsm is a society in wich the individuls revolve around the goal of geting to the top of the hierachy within there society, wich is based on power, money and what not.

Not by definition. People are not forced under capitalism to try to achieve maximum wealth or power. Ask yourself why people choose to go into low-paying yet rewarding careers like teaching or government work. I for instance have no interest in joining the corporate rat race and have chosen instead to work for non-profit associations. There is no power or large sums of money in my career field; yet I generally enjoy it.

Yes, many people in a capitalist society go for money and power. Many do so illegitimately, and are usually punished for it. But capitalism still provides a place for those who are not interested in competition or are interested in serving the public good.


Therefor under capatilsm one must climb above the ones beneath to attain a higher status then others. Once at the top it becomes that they must keep everyone else down so that they dont lose there comfy seat at the top. This is how capatilsm OPPRESSES.

Not so, for reasons stated above. Many if not most people in our capitalist system are perfectly happy in medium-income career fields or jobs and have no interest in self-aggrandizement. This fact refutes your assertion. Sorry.


But eventually this individual (who will now be an authatarian within this society) will take it upon themself to use society to get higher then there current position wich they attained by corupting and manipulating corporation and inheritance etc.

This individual will therfor begin to oppress the society in order to benefit hes individual profit, and the needs of the ones beneath him/her, will be geting less and less important. Until we attain a state inwich an individual corrupts the society to hes own gain and benefit.

Really. Bill Gates is the richest man in the United States. According to your assertion, he should now be trying to use his wealth to become President of the United States, and then eventually become a dictator. So far, there is little evidence that Mr. Gates is interested in political power. In fact, there is no evidence he's interested in using his wealth to oppress - he's donated more than $1 billion of his personal wealth to charity.

In fact, if your assertion were accurate, then corporate CEOs should be running for political office in droves. So far, they haven't.

Your assertions are really way off the mark.


You will begin to lose your rights so that this individual authoratarian can profit more. And therfor your very fundamental birth rights will be attacked as in not to attain the position to become top dog and otherthrow the current dictator.

But capatilsm is ALWAYS an eventual manisfestation into facism.


Let's see: The United States has been capitalist since 1776. In that time, our individual rights have increased, not decreased. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, how many dictators have we had since 1776? I count zero.

So, do you make this stuff up as you go along or are you gullible enough that you're believing someone else's BS?




This is facism.

I bet you have a long list of evidence that you are oppressed. :lol:

[colombiano]

I bet you have a long list of evidence that you are oppressed

Again you are diminishing this into an Individual problem .

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:30 PM

I bet you have a long list of evidence that you are oppressed

Again you are diminishing this into an Individual problem .
But I see you cannot refute anything I said.

Even the world's poor are not oppressed by capitalism - they are oppresed by their political systems.

Consider Mauritius (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mp.html) for instance - a tiny African island nation that was once a colony and was not independent until 1968.

Because its people chose the path of stable government and democracy instead of dictatorship, it has a standard of living close to that of the western industrialized world.

Now, you can rightly claim if you want that many nations couldn't choose their political path because of interference by the United States. Fair enough. But that does not mean by definition that other nations cannot now adopt capitalist, liberal democracies and thrive just like Mauritius.

[1936]

take the words of fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini

Mussolini was the first to embrace himself as a facist, and generalise the actions of oppresion as facism, but he was not the first facist.

From the definition of facism that i have come to know, surely vlad templar would be a facist, ghenkis khan would be a facist, and most certainly the british empire was facism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:18 PM

take the words of fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini

Mussolini was the first to embrace himself as a facist, and generalise the actions of oppresion as facism, but he was not the first facist.

From the definition of facism that i have come to know, surely vlad templar would be a facist, ghenkis khan would be a facist, and most certainly the british empire was facism.
I don't think that list includes the leaders of every nation that practiced capitalism.

:o

[1936]

[eh? What are you on about?

name one nation that practised capatilsm for a sugnificant period of time that wasnt victim of facism!

[colombiano]

Even the world's poor are not oppressed by capitalism - they are oppresed by their political systems
You enjoy the very rights and way of life you have today because of the Oppression and exploitation of others by your system. One could argue that in the U$ there is oppression and (without a doubt) prejudice today. Due to Social, Gender and Sexual Preference(orientation) Stratification. The arguement of getting shot and shocked in the nuts with a tazer gun as an example of oppression seems little silly though. However many sociologists will agree that Capitalism fosters inequality.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:44 PM
[eh? What are you on about?

name one nation that practised capatilsm for a sugnificant period of time that wasnt victim of facism!
The United States.

Let me guess, we are a fascist dictatorship though.

:lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:48 PM

Even the world's poor are not oppressed by capitalism - they are oppresed by their political systems
You enjoy the very rights and way of life you have today because of the Oppression and exploitation of others by your system. One could argue that in the U$ there is oppression and (without a doubt) prejudice today. Due to Social, Gender and Sexual Preference(orientation) Stratification. The arguement of getting shot and shocked in the nuts with a tazer gun as an example of oppression seems little silly though. However many sociologists will agree that Capitalism fosters inequality.
Inequality is not by definition oppression.


You all have been saying that one "could argue" there is oppression in the U.S. today but so far the only examples are not being able to smoke weed all day.

I remain unconvinced.

[1936]

Why dont you ask the kids in workshops in indochina, if the american corporation of nike is facist?

why dont you ask most of south america, if the u$ are facist?

why dont you ask cambodia? if that big bomb shaped object was a facist tool?

why dont you ask the apachi or the hurain if the americans were facist?

[t_wolves_fan]

Why dont you ask the kids in workshops in indochina, if the american corporation of nike is facist?

I doubt they'd know.

Does Nike require them to work in the factories?



why dont you ask most of south america, if the u$ are facist?

Having met a number of South Americans I'd wager they'd say "no".


why dont you ask cambodia? if that big bomb shaped object was a facist tool?

Would that be before or after their own leadership littered the countryside with their skulls?


why dont you ask the apachi or the hurain if the americans were facist?

Why don't you attempt to actually answer a question instead of responding with more questions?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is that capitalism isn't in-your-face opppressive in the same as fascism, but the way it operates creates simply enormous inequalities where there need not be.

The issue is not only oppression, although that certainly occurs, but the fact that a small amount of people with a vast amount of money can have a diproportionate influence on the way society is run, meaning that those with money implement policies which further their own causes. The fact you have to have a massive amount of corporate sponsorship in elections to stand a chance of winning is a case in point.

In fact, the only way one can have a dignified life is through money. considering a very small amount of people live in the lap of luxury (and don't usually deserve to) and most people live in disgusting poverty (And don't usually deserve to) Is a glaring statement of the fact that capitalism has failed to bring benefit to humanity as a whole, and must be replaced with something better, and not simply reformed or renamed.

[1936]

You want me to answer without a question fine!

U$ IS FACIST!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:19 PM
You want me to answer without a question fine!

U$ IS FACIST!
To put it like that would be to oversimplify the problem my friend.

While the ruling capitalist class is, at the moment, relatively unthreatened, it is using the current 'terrorist threat' to bolster it's position and justify the passing of quasi-fascist bills such as the Patriot Act I & II. The US and in a small way the UK too is moving towards a unique style of fascism, but both are far from full-blown fascist states like Italy under Mussolini.

[t_wolves_fan]

The problem is that capitalism isn't in-your-face opppressive in the same as fascism, but the way it operates creates simply enormous inequalities where there need not be.

Inequality is not by definition oppression.


The issue is not only oppression, although that certainly occurs, but the fact that a small amount of people with a vast amount of money can have a diproportionate influence on the way society is run, meaning that those with money implement policies which further their own causes. The fact you have to have a massive amount of corporate sponsorship in elections to stand a chance of winning is a case in point.

The election of representatives is a political concern that could easily be changed by publicly financing elections. This is what they do in Europe and it's not completely incompatible with capitalism.


In fact, the only way one can have a dignified life is through money.

This is a stupid and easily-disproven generalization. Plenty of people feign materialism for a career in public service and they are free to do so. They consider their lives dignified, which is all that matters. Rich snobs might think less of them, but these people usually could care less. I know because I happen to be one.


considering a very small amount of people live in the lap of luxury (and don't usually deserve to) and most people live in disgusting poverty (And don't usually deserve to) Is a glaring statement of the fact that capitalism has failed to bring benefit to humanity as a whole, and must be replaced with something better, and not simply reformed or renamed.

People live in disgusting poverty because of American foreign policy and because their own political systems have failed them, not because of capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Inequality is not by definition oppression.

I didn't say it was. But I did point out that it was a bad thing, something which you don't seem to consider.


The election of representatives is a political concern that could easily be changed by publicly financing elections. This is what they do in Europe and it's not completely incompatible with capitalism.

Nobody is claiming Europe is fascist, we are talking about the US. Why aren't election campaigns in the US publicly funded?


This is a stupid and easily-disproven generalization. Plenty of people feign materialism for a career in public service and they are free to do so. They consider their lives dignified, which is all that matters. Rich snobs might think less of them, but these people usually could care less. I know because I happen to be one.

People feign the desire to own things so they can get jobs with the government and get looked down upon by rich people? what the hell are you on about? I'm talking about the fact that despite appearances, the affluent western lifestyle is not the most common sort of lifestyle. The most common lifestyle is considerably lower quality.



People live in disgusting poverty because of American foreign policy and because their own political systems have failed them, not because of capitalism.

American foreign policy acts in the interests of capitalism. And capitalism is the most dominant political system, so capitalism has failed billions.

[t_wolves_fan]

Nobody is claiming Europe is fascist, we are talking about the US. Why aren't election campaigns in the US publicly funded?

Because the public does not support the idea of publicly-funded elections, which is a political issue and has little to do with capitalism.





People feign the desire to own things so they can get jobs with the government and get looked down upon by rich people? what the hell are you on about? I'm talking about the fact that despite appearances, the affluent western lifestyle is not the most common sort of lifestyle. The most common lifestyle is considerably lower quality.

You just said previously that, "In fact, the only way one can have a dignified life is through money." Presumably you meant that the only way one can have a dignified life in a capitalist system, such as the United States, is to make a lot of money.

I refuted that - plenty of people in the United States feign materialism and careers that make a lot of money to work for the public good.



American foreign policy acts in the interests of capitalism. And capitalism is the most dominant political system, so capitalism has failed billions.

LOL. This is the same argument as saying the Soviet Union and China practiced the "dominant" form of communism and so communism has failed millions. But y'all seem to have a problem with that argument.

American foreign policy has perverted capitalism through the political process. Capitalism as a system is not to blame, the American political system is to blame.

The distinction is that communism is both a political and economic system. Capitalism can exist with pretty much any political system, including liberal democracy and fascism. Communism does not have that disctinction.

[1936]

"American foreign policy has perverted capitalism through the political process. Capitalism as a system is not to blame, the American political system is to blame."

Ok so by your definition capatilsm isnt facist...its the tool used by facists?

[NovelGentry]

Because the public does not support the idea of publicly-funded elections, which is a political issue and has little to do with capitalism.

The problem is of course that the people don't vote on issues, nor do we really have the capability of proposing such issues to those who make the laws... and even if we did propose them, we have no money to lobby for their support. And even if we did have money to lobby for their support, why would the large number of career politicians give up a large portion of the means by which they maintain control?

There is no real conduit by which the people have the means to inject such positions. The existing situation barely allows someone who opposes such an issue as this a method of being elected. Even with large scale support in voters, candidates are forced to come up with funds to even get on ballots. Of course publically funded elections are primarily in the interest of people who don't have money to support the candidate of their choice, and they are primarily the interest of candidates who in turn don't have such funds through their own power or through private interests to even enter into these positions.

Furthermore, even if a candidate were to get into such a position, for example Nader actually becoming president, the actual change would still have to occur in the rest of the political spectrum, including congress, who are, much like other "representative" in a position to deny such reform in their own interest as career politicians. Combine something like this with the redistricting which occurs to push out third party candidate, or even second party candidate in much of the state level and you see a system which ensures no such change is possible.

It is broken to begin with, and broken in such a way to ensure it cannot be fixed from within.


plenty of people in the United States feign materialism and careers that make a lot of money to work for the public good.

And from what I can see of his point, he is talking about the people who don't have the option to feign it because it's not even an option to begin with. And please, this is a poor usage of the word materialism.


LOL. This is the same argument as saying the Soviet Union and China practiced the "dominant" form of communism and so communism has failed millions. But y'all seem to have a problem with that argument.

Of course, because communism, has specific definitions of what the political sphere is to look like. Political domination in communism is contradictory what communism actually is -- that is not the case under capitalism.

The minute you say a "dominant" form of communism (by which I can only assume you mean authoritive totalitarianism) you've violated core principles as to what communism itself is. The same cannot be said about capitalism -- however, and without a doubt this is where your confusing lies, the same could be said about free market capitalism. A dominant form of free market capitalism is indeed not free market capitalism, but you and others alike agree, capitalism does not in particular set down what the political spectrum is to look like:


which is a political issue and has little to do with capitalism.

The recurring political theme of capitalism is that that the bourgeoisie controls the politics -- thus making it something of a political economy. However, what form the bourgeoisie takes: Free market private control, State control, or authoritarian control, need not be distinguished to ensure they are IN control. If they were not in control, I'm not sure how you could expect it to last too long.

Capitalism is political by chance, by nature that it's economic class constructs do not allow it to be otherwise.

Communism is political (or if you will apolitical) by definition. It recognizes political power is found through economic power, and thus abolishes political power by equalizing economic structure and seeing classes as non-existent.


American foreign policy has perverted capitalism through the political process. Capitalism as a system is not to blame, the American political system is to blame.

Capitalism has given rise to the Ameircan political system -- just as it has given rise to the political systems of other advanced capitalist nations. Where you see publically funded elections as a political issue, you fail to realize it's consequence through economic classes.

Even if there was a point in history that the ruling economic class was not the politically dominant group, by the very nature of capitalism -- the dominant political group would become bourgeoisie.

In capitalism, money talks, and silences everything else.


The distinction is that communism is both a political and economic system. Capitalism can exist with pretty much any political system, including liberal democracy and fascism. Communism does not have that disctinction.

Agreed (SEE: the point I made above) -- but regardless of the political system of capitalism, you can ensure it is run by the bourgeoisie, and thus protects the interest of the bourgeoisie.

As per communism, your issue is that you think it's political system is the likes of the USSR. In reality, and as I said above, communism is apolitical, by chance that economic classes play no role, because they do not exist.

In this sense, communism separates the political and economic sphere, and as defined in the system, each one takes a specific form. Capitalism on the other hand, as much as what is defined in the system does not specify a political form, ensures through economic classes that regardless of political form, economy rules. And thus, the ACTUAL roles are reversed and we see that capitalism is not so mutually exclusive in it's political and economic aspects, but instead it's political realm is defined by it's economic masters, making it a political-economy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 27 2005, 03:03 PM
"American foreign policy has perverted capitalism through the political process. Capitalism as a system is not to blame, the American political system is to blame."

Ok so by your definition capatilsm isnt facist...its the tool used by facists?
No, idiot.

Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is an economic system. They can both exist with or without fascism. "Fascists" can manipulate both systems to their own ends.

Frankly it would be rather easier for fascists to use socialism as a "tool" than capitalism, don't you think? Fascism = strong central control by the government. Socialism = centrally controlled economy. Capitalism = economic system in which individuals have control. Under which system would it be easier for fascists to have more direct control over your life?

[1936]

Well when the facist begins to use socialsm to get hes own way, its kind of no longer socialsm.

[NovelGentry]

Socialism = centrally controlled economy.

This is a common misconception about socialism. There is nothing in socialism which says you need a centrally planned economy. It has historically been the case to state this as what are widely considered examples of socialism (although some would argue are not actually socialism) have all been characterized by state planned and thus controlled economies, and centralized power in the state.

Socialism as an economy cannot be said to require this, as you yourself are admitting in saying it is an economic system ONLY (although some would still prefer better wording with that). While whether or not it is centrally controled is completely a socio-political aspect.

Contrary to what you believe and present as fact, socialism can work with an extremely decentralized economy -- and in fact, it could be considered favorable.


Capitalism = economic system in which individuals have control.

This too is false, and again, you are admitting so here:


Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is an economic system.

If it is an economic system and nothing more, why do you claim such political aspects have to be present?


Under which system would it be easier for fascists to have more direct control over your life?

Capitalism.

Socialism actually requires that the means of production be socialized, that is available to the public, that is, no ownership. Capitalism protects the private interest in all forms, not just in individual private property but private property in the means of production too. Socialism looks to destroy this aspect and change the mode of production so that the means of production are within the hands of the people, thereby "socializing" it. Key word there being social, as in society,and not as in individual.

EDIT:

To give better wording to both, one could consider capitalism a political-economy, whereby it is characterized by a range of politically acceptable establishments -- to which I can not see where Fascism contradicts. The other could be cosidered a social-economy, wherebye it is characterized by a range of socially acceptable establishments -- to which it would seem Fascism blatantly contradicts.

[t_wolves_fan]

This is a common misconception about socialism. There is nothing in socialism which says you need a centrally planned economy. It has historically been the case to state this as what are widely considered examples of socialism (although some would argue are not actually socialism) have all been characterized by state planned and thus controlled economies, and centralized power in the state.

Socialism as an economy cannot be said to require this, as you yourself are admitting in saying it is an economic system ONLY (although some would still prefer better wording with that). While whether or not it is centrally controled is completely a socio-political aspect.

Contrary to what you believe and present as fact, socialism can work with an extremely decentralized economy -- and in fact, it could be considered favorable.

First, considering every historical example of socialism has involved centralized - indeed oppressively centralized - economic planning makes it closer to being fact than my opinion.

Second, contrary to what most of you on this board believe and present as fact, capitalism can and does exist in societies that are non-fascist. In fact, capitalism's track record is exponentially better than socialism's in this regard, don't you think?



Capitalism = economic system in which individuals have control.

This too is false, and again, you are admitting so here:


Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is an economic system.

If it is an economic system and nothing more, why do you claim such political aspects have to be present?

Ummm, my claim is not fale. Capitalism involves individual control of economic activity. Individuals are free to open their own business; own, buy, and sell their own property and labor. Under socialism, as history has shown, individuals have no such freedom.

Do certain political aspects need to apply for a system to be truly "capitalist"? Sure, I guess. So what? Government policy needs to allow participants into the market and allow free exchange of goods, service, and labor. I suppose pure capitalism might only exist under anarchy, but that doesn't change my argument.



Under which system would it be easier for fascists to have more direct control over your life?

Capitalism.

Socialism actually requires that the means of production be socialized, that is available to the public, that is, no ownership. Capitalism protects the private interest in all forms, not just in individual private property but private property in the means of production too. Socialism looks to destroy this aspect and change the mode of production so that the means of production are within the hands of the people, thereby "socializing" it. Key word there being social, as in society,and not as in individual.

When you say "social" I see "government". You like to pretend that society can gather and run everything without that being called "government". While there would be a government apparatus separate from the socially-controlled economy in a socialist system, I see the boundary between economic and political life in socialism as being very blurred. That's why I say socialism is basically an economic theory, becuase you could democratically agree on how to split everything up equally or you could have Stalin deciding and it'd still be socialist in that everything is owned by the state.

I am at a loss to figure out how someone could think the potential for malicious government is greater in a system where you have ownership of your own life as opposed to one where nearly every aspect of your being is up for public discourse.



To give better wording to both, one could consider capitalism a political-economy, whereby it is characterized by a range of politically acceptable establishments -- to which I can not see where Fascism contradicts.

I cannot see where fascism and capitalism are compatible, frankly. Capitalism = individual ownership of the tools of the economy. Fascism = centralized control of everything. Capitalism = work and economic activity primarily for the good of the individual. Fascism = work and everything for the good of the state.


The other could be cosidered a social-economy, wherebye it is characterized by a range of socially acceptable establishments -- to which it would seem Fascism blatantly contradicts.

Again, I see fascism's value of the state over the individual and socialism's value of the society over the individual as extremely compatible.

[RedAnarchist]

State and society are different - society is possible without a state, but you cant have a state without a society.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:03 PM
State and society are different - society is possible without a state, but you cant have a state without a society.
And if society is controlling how much I may earn, that's a state.

[colombiano]

And if society is controlling how much I may earn, that's a state.
You are viewing this in terms of your own Upward Mobility. However (using my definitions of these words) with this "Society"or "Rich" couldn't the same be said about the State"Politicians" not granting workers a Living Wage rather than a Minimum Wage due to socio/economic coercions or political Capital from the"Society" or " Rich" ? Thus allowing huge corporations to get by with a bare minimal forcing many workers into the arms of social progarms at the expsense of the taxpayer anyway?OR the State "politicians" turning a blind eye to the explotation of slave labor markets that are clearly in the favor of the "Society or Rich" Corporate structure rather than the people which it affects? It is a State and to be more precise and Oligarchy that you are condoning.

[t_wolves_fan]

You might have a point if I thought it was the business of government to regulate wages, which I don't.

[colombiano]

BTW Go Celtics!
Yeah I know they suck, but at least I still have the Sox and Pats! :D

[colombiano]

You might have a point if I thought it was the business of government to regulate wages, which I don't
With all due respect that is VERY SCARY to me. To live in a society where there is (what I would perceive as little protection for ALL people) an unregulated market.
I have to run catch you people later.

[colombiano]

You might have a point if I thought it was the business of government to regulate wages, which I don't.
BTW before I go I wanted to point out that you are seeing this in terms of YOUR Own Upward Mobility and Not in Terms of Downward Mobility . I hope I am making sense, it can be difficult to express certain ideas and thoughts in second language sometimes.
Gotta go see ya!

[NovelGentry]

First, considering every historical example of socialism has involved centralized - indeed oppressively centralized - economic planning makes it closer to being fact than my opinion.

I could very well argue this, but someone else or a group of someone elses, has already done a veyr good job of it). It was for this reason that I had put certain things in parentheses. Regardless of how much you think something is socialism, there is a difinitive measure of what socialism is, and it has historic example, as well as literature throughout history surrounding it's true nature.

From Wikipedia on Socialism:



Most past and present states ruled by parties of Communist orientation called (or call) themselves "socialist." However, in the western world they were usually all referred to as "Communist states." Once again, whether these states were socialist or not was (and is) disputed, with the large majority of today’s socialists (including many, perhaps most, communists) contending that they were not socialist, for reasons directly analogous to those just discussed in the section above (regarding the "socialist" economy).

There are also some who dispute whether it is appropriate to refer to any state, past, present, future, or hypothetical as "socialist," preferring to reserve that word for an economy or even a society, but not a state.

This citation clearly state that there is, disagreement as to what these things actually mean, however, it also points out the following:


The word dates back at least to the early nineteenth century. It was first used, self-referentially, in the English language in 1827 to refer to followers of Robert Owen. In France, again self-referentially, it was used in 1832 to refer to followers of the doctrines of Saint-Simon and thereafter by Pierre Leroux and J. Regnaud in l'Encyclopédie nouvelle. Use of the word spread widely and has been used differently in different times and places, both by various individuals and groups that consider themselves socialist and by their opponents.

In seeking the origin of the word we find:


The whole of society ought to strive towards the amelioration of the moral and physical existence of the poorest class; society ought to organize itself in the way best adapted for attaining this end.

The problem is then such that one must define the means by which to do this, while maintaining material feasibility. That is to say, socialism in it's original definition does not take on material practicality. Marx's work, to my knowledge, was some of the first work to have actually looked at history in this light. That is, to say that the whole of human history is driven by it's material conditions, and thus, society itself has done so. Given this, Marxism is extremely apt to presenting the true nature on which to "organize itself in the way best adapted for attaining this end."

I would recommend this piece of work by his counterpart Frederik Engels:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

A relevant quote from this:


This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing with the socialized character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control, except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of Nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But,with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.

Now as much as you or others in support of capitalism would like to define socialism the way you have here, the word already has an extremely rich history. Which surely you can agree was NOT the case in the USSR. That is to say, that the USSR had never seen a period where "society as a whole" had maintiained control over these productive forces, only the state.


Second, contrary to what most of you on this board believe and present as fact, capitalism can and does exist in societies that are non-fascist. In fact, capitalism's track record is exponentially better than socialism's in this regard, don't you think?

I don't believe capitalism has to take a fascist role throughout it's existence. I believe the only way to maintain the property rights granted under capitalism while continuing the growth of it's productive forces is THROUGH fascism. In short, capitalism grows ever closer to fascism until it eventually sees it. This too is not to say that fascism has to come out of advanced capitalism -- however, note that the depression in Germany could be seen as the economic downturn of capitalism there -- indeed it was one of the more advanced capitalist nations. The fact that this depression was resolved in Fascism is not a big surprise. Nor should it be any surprise that after the general destruction of Europe caused in WWII that capitalism has found a new lease on life -- to grow yet again and grow these means of production.

I believe socialism is a lot closer than many of us suspect, and I believe the development of consciousness will be extremely rapid, particularly here in the US. I believe it was Redstar who once said that he would put France and Germany on the list of advancing capitalist nations, probably most likely to see capitalism first (I do apologize if this was not you who said this Redstar). However, what I think may have been overlooked far too much was that WWII for Americans advanced capitalism, while for the greater part of Europeans extended it due to the destruction of a vast amount of the means of production. This said, I think the US is in a far better position to see socialism materialize out of it's next "hump."

I give it 30 years.


Ummm, my claim is not fale. Capitalism involves individual control of economic activity. Individuals are free to open their own business; own, buy, and sell their own property and labor. Under socialism, as history has shown, individuals have no such freedom.

But your claim is false, it extends what capitalism is. Capitalism protect private ownership which is not inherently individual ownership -- you need to look no further than the stock market for the reasons why.

Socialism on the other hand DEMANDS that this ownership be placed in society as a whole -- which regardless of what you consider previous examples of socialism, directly contradicts state ownership.


Do certain political aspects need to apply for a system to be truly "capitalist"? Sure, I guess. So what? Government policy needs to allow participants into the market and allow free exchange of goods, service, and labor. I suppose pure capitalism might only exist under anarchy, but that doesn't change my argument.

Again, I do not claim capitalism IS fascism, merely that it leads to it. Capitalism eventually manifests it as Fascism. Whether or not one can consider Fascism to even be capitalism, regardless of it's support of capitalists or it's allowance of capitalist aspects, is more fair to be disputed by your argument. And in which case, I would agree. Fascism does not imply capitalism, nor does capitalism imply fascism, but it does seek to breed it's existence.


When you say "social" I see "government".

And this is a flaw in your thinking, not mine. You are extremely short sighted because of your respect for what capitalism has shown you "social" to relate to. With terms like social security, etc. You consider the state within the public realm because you believe democracy exists -- where the left sees the state itself as a contradiction of real democracy.

The state is a tool of class oppression. As I believe Marx said, democracy is the road to socialism, socialism cannot actually exist without democracy. In this sense, it would be foolish to maintain that post-revolutionary society would actually be socialism, or total democracy. However, it would be closer to total democracy than capitalism, and as such closer to socialism as democracy would exist for a majority (the proletariat), where under capitalism democracy exists for a minority (the bourgeoisie).


You like to pretend that society can gather and run everything without that being called "government".

No, I do not. What I make is a distinction between government and the state. Government exists on the condition that someone or a group of people is governed. Self government, is STILL government. But in the traditional sense it is not "a government." That is to say, we do have government, in the abstract sense of the noun, we do not have a government or the government in th opaque sense of the noun.


While there would be a government apparatus separate from the socially-controlled economy in a socialist system, I see the boundary between economic and political life in socialism as being very blurred.

Again, where you are wrong. There would not be a government apparatus separate from the socially controlled economy. The socially controlled economy would be comprised of the same body of people that control non-economic aspects of government. There is no separation.

What must be recognized is that one aspect of this embodies the state, while the other aspect contradicts is. Within the political spectrum we can consider ourselves to have a state. This is my primary misunderstanding of modern anarchists and anarcho-communists -- who would claim that the very same political spectrum does not comprise a state for the sake of holding on to the very same bourgeois definition which you maintain.

The state will exist for political oppression, it is the political tool of the working class, comprised and formed and under the control of the working class. Just the same as the economy, however, the state does not exist for economic oppression. This is where the USSR failed to achieve socialism.

You see it blurred because it is within the same hands, it is the exact same group of people. And this may seem quite blurry to someone who maintains such distinctions, which includes the anarchists. However, I think anyone with a moderate understanding of Marxism, and thus Marxists, see the distinction quite clearly.

The state does not dissolve when economic control is no longer a necessity -- socialism seeks to make economic control out of the hands of the state. It dissolves when political control is no longer a necessity, and it seeks to oppress the political power of the opposing class. Socialism, unlike capitalism, enforces a distinction between economic power and political power, capitalism does not. Hence why I said socialism is a social-economy and capitalism is a political-economy.


That's why I say socialism is basically an economic theory, becuase you could democratically agree on how to split everything up equally or you could have Stalin deciding and it'd still be socialist in that everything is owned by the state.

Socialism does not mean everything is owned by the state. Control over the means of produciton (and thus the means of distribution) is within the hands of the producers, immediately following the revolution one would assume this to be the proletariat -- if indeed members of other classes are even still hiding away in the country, they too would be folded into production, by chance that if they did not they would not survive. . The state is directly in the hands of the proletariat, and is democratically controlled by the revolutionary proletariat, and exlusive of the bourgeoisie or other reactionary elements.

As Marx points out "Equal obligation of all to work."

The economic role of the state is not to plan or control economic factors, but to faciliate them. Again, making a very thick line separate between planning and coordinating, even still coorinating is not the right word, as it only facilitiates in the coordination. These portion of the state mechanism is frequently called the administrative. Which is the name I use somewhat interchangeably with the FAWP (Free association of workers and producers) -- however, I tend to reserve a difference, as the administrative is a state mechanism, while the FAWP exists regardless of the state. This is to say the FAWP exists alongside the administrative under socialism.

The economic role of the state is effectively relegated to (According to Marx anyway):

1) The creation of a monetary/credit system (centralizing of credit and banks within the hands of the state) -- to which Marx attributes "by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." This is a touchy subject, and a point where I no doubt differ with Leninist interpretation, which we can discuss more if you would like, just mention so in your response.

2) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. -- Remember, however, Marx lived before the age of the automobile. I don't think it is feasible, nor do I think it is necessary, nor do I think this statement is any indication, that personal transportation is to be stripped of people.

3) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. -- Note Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, this is not the same as saying centralization of factories and instruments of production in the hands of the state.

And that is just about it.


I am at a loss to figure out how someone could think the potential for malicious government is greater in a system where you have ownership of your own life as opposed to one where nearly every aspect of your being is up for public discourse.

It's not about "potential for maliciousness" -- it is about the material conditions to satisfy it's existence. However much that argument alone does not contradict your overall point, your overall point is still based on your extremely flawed understanding of socialism which you maintain requires centralization -- and I maintain opposes it. So let's argue that if you'd like to prove this true, because without that, your argument holds no water.

As for why capitalism progresses towards fascism, my argument about material conditions, no matter how simple it may sound, does hold water. And we can go into that further if you like as well.


I cannot see where fascism and capitalism are compatible, frankly. Capitalism = individual ownership of the tools of the economy. Fascism = centralized control of everything. Capitalism = work and economic activity primarily for the good of the individual. Fascism = work and everything for the good of the state.

But again, you maintain capitalism is about individual ownership, which is not the case, but simply private ownership -- again, look at the stock market.


Again, I see fascism's value of the state over the individual and socialism's value of the society over the individual as extremely compatible.

Since when did the state and the whole of society become that interchangeable to warrant compatibility. Unless your state is 100% democratic for all people, it cannot be considered society.

And even if this were the case, Fascism directly contradict this by excluding elements of society from actual "citzenship" which affords them the the actual rights.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:23 AM


Now as much as you or others in support of capitalism would like to define socialism the way you have here, the word already has an extremely rich history. Which surely you can agree was NOT the case in the USSR. That is to say, that the USSR had never seen a period where "society as a whole" had maintiained control over these productive forces, only the state.


Second, contrary to what most of you on this board believe and present as fact, capitalism can and does exist in societies that are non-fascist. In fact, capitalism's track record is exponentially better than socialism's in this regard, don't you think?


No, I don't think. Because you don't accept that the USSR or China or Cuba is "socialism", I could care less. Your opinion on the matter really has no relevance to me. So please stop trying.

I view the USSR, China and Cuba as socialist because they represent precisely what I think is inevitable in a socialist system, as I've said before. Look at the quotes of people on this board, even yourself. You'll gladly excercise complete control during the "revolution", which you yourself have said wouldn't end for a period of decades.

I'm sorry, but I do not take it on faith that if people like you and the other whackjobs on this board will eventually decide one day the "people" have completed the revolution and simply hand over the reigns of power. Hence, if people like you or the other loons on this board took over, we'd never have the communist utopia you advocate in the other thread. Instead, you'd fight amongst each other, arguing over whose version of the "revolution" is more pure. You'd want to kill the people who dare to want to stay in their homes, NoXiom would want to kill all the religious people, and Rice would just want to kill everyone.


I don't believe capitalism has to take a fascist role throughout it's existence. I believe the only way to maintain the property rights granted under capitalism while continuing the growth of it's productive forces is THROUGH fascism.

Uh huh. Whatever. That's one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever heard.




In short, capitalism grows ever closer to fascism until it eventually sees it. This too is not to say that fascism has to come out of advanced capitalism -- however, note that the depression in Germany could be seen as the economic downturn of capitalism there -- indeed it was one of the more advanced capitalist nations. The fact that this depression was resolved in Fascism is not a big surprise. Nor should it be any surprise that after the general destruction of Europe caused in WWII that capitalism has found a new lease on life -- to grow yet again and grow these means of production.

So, you're basing your claim that capitalism devolves into fascism because of one example, Germany in the 1930s. And yet I'm not allowed to claim socialism results in authoritarianism using examples of what happened in pretty much every socialist nation on earth in history.

Idiot, the United States had quite a depression in the 1930s as well. We did not turn into a fascist state last I heard. Therefore your assertion that capitalism --> depression ---> fascism is refuted. Have a nice day.


I believe socialism is a lot closer than many of us suspect, and I believe the development of consciousness will be extremely rapid,

I'm pretty sure Marx said the same thing in 1848 and Lenin said the same thing in 1917.

Don't hold your breath.


particularly here in the US.

Yes. The reelection of a President who advocates the ownership society and tax cuts for the rich really indicates we are on the road to socialism.

Keep dreaming.



I believe it was Redstar who once said that he would put France and Germany on the list of advancing capitalist nations, probably most likely to see capitalism first (I do apologize if this was not you who said this Redstar).

They already have capitalism so how could they see capitalism first?

I'm assuming this is a typo, that you meant Germany or France could see "socialism" first.

These are fairly moronic statements which indicate You're not paying any attention (http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,2340,en_2649_201185_33633971_1_1_1_1,00.html) to events in those countries, or you're good at deluding yourself. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/25/34486844.pdf)





Ummm, my claim is not fale. Capitalism involves individual control of economic activity. Individuals are free to open their own business; own, buy, and sell their own property and labor. Under socialism, as history has shown, individuals have no such freedom.

But your claim is false, it extends what capitalism is. Capitalism protect private ownership which is not inherently individual ownership -- you need to look no further than the stock market for the reasons why.

Um, you need to be more specific, your point makes no sense.

Why do people purchase stock if they don't intend to gain from their private ownership of that stock?



Again, I do not claim capitalism IS fascism, merely that it leads to it.

Based on one, ONE single example.


And in which case, I would agree. Fascism does not imply capitalism, nor does capitalism imply fascism, but it does seek to breed it's existence.

Another stupid assertion and another contradiction.

You just said above, "I believe the only way to maintain the property rights granted under capitalism while continuing the growth of it's productive forces is THROUGH fascism." So you think capitalism does not imply fascism but that in capitalism property rights, on which capitalism depends, can only be maintained through fascism?

I get tired of asking this, but which is it?

I don't even assert that socialism "seeks" to create authoritarianism. As a theory it's neutral on the political aspects. My assertion is simply that socialism leads to authoritarianism because people are not angels and so the people who "lead" the socialist effort eventually take power for themselves, much like Napolean the pig in Animal Farm.

Capitalism is the same as socialism in this regard - it neither seeks nor tries to actively avoid fascism per se, though it's basic principle really contradicts the basic principles of fascism.



The state is a tool of class oppression. As I believe Marx said, democracy is the road to socialism, socialism cannot actually exist without democracy. In this sense, it would be foolish to maintain that post-revolutionary society would actually be socialism, or total democracy. However, it would be closer to total democracy than capitalism, and as such closer to socialism as democracy would exist for a majority (the proletariat), where under capitalism democracy exists for a minority (the bourgeoisie).

In terms of pure, direct democracy I don't disagree. Your problem is that the United States never has been a pure, direct democracy nor do I advocate or even desire pure, direct democracy. That's because it's too inefficient to run a modern state any bigger than Switzerland; though its principles can be incorporated by allowing referenda as California does.

Do you really think society would run smoothly if 300 million people voted on every single issue? Didn't you advocate a basic system of representative democracy where workers vote on representatives who can be recalled in the other thread anyway?


No, I do not. What I make is a distinction between government and the state. Government exists on the condition that someone or a group of people is governed. Self government, is STILL government. But in the traditional sense it is not "a government." That is to say, we do have government, in the abstract sense of the noun, we do not have a government or the government in th opaque sense of the noun.

Is it self-government to ban religion, take children away from parents, or force people into labor or living quarters as many people on this board have advocated?


Again, where you are wrong. There would not be a government apparatus separate from the socially controlled economy. The socially controlled economy would be comprised of the same body of people that control non-economic aspects of government. There is no separation.

You say tomato I say tom-ahto. If "society" is voting by direct democracy on whether I can teach my children religion, then it's an oppressive government.



Socialism does not mean everything is owned by the state. Control over the means of produciton (and thus the means of distribution) is within the hands of the producers, immediately following the revolution one would assume this to be the proletariat -- if indeed members of other classes are even still hiding away in the country, they too would be folded into production, by chance that if they did not they would not survive. . The state is directly in the hands of the proletariat, and is democratically controlled by the revolutionary proletariat, and exlusive of the bourgeoisie or other reactionary elements.

You fail to show me how this is any better or any different than an oppressive government.

Yay! The working-class are now voting on everything I may do. Woopty, I sure am more free now!

NOT.


As Marx points out "Equal obligation of all to work."

You said in the other thread that in your communist-utopian society there would be no obligation to work, that you could take without worried about what you must "pay" in return. It seems Marx felt there was an obligation to "pay" with your work.

Which is it?


The economic role of the state is not to plan or control economic factors, but to faciliate them. Again, making a very thick line separate between planning and coordinating, even still coorinating is not the right word, as it only facilitiates in the coordination. These portion of the state mechanism is frequently called the administrative. Which is the name I use somewhat interchangeably with the FAWP (Free association of workers and producers) -- however, I tend to reserve a difference, as the administrative is a state mechanism, while the FAWP exists regardless of the state. This is to say the FAWP exists alongside the administrative under socialism.

And it remains my position that it is not going to be possible for all of the chains of production and distribution to agree on how much of what to produce efficiently. Your only explanation for how this will happen in the other thread is that it will magically work out and that scarcity won't happen (apparently because there will be an endless supply of raw materials). The production/distribution mechanism you describe in the other thread is simply naive and unrealistic and assumes way too much that people will simply agree on everything.

The economic role of the state is effectively relegated to (According to Marx anyway):


1) The creation of a monetary/credit system (centralizing of credit and banks within the hands of the state) -- to which Marx attributes "by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." This is a touchy subject, and a point where I no doubt differ with Leninist interpretation, which we can discuss more if you would like, just mention so in your response.

Great, so the state is in control of capital. Before I could get it if I could convince enough people to lend it to me; now I have to convince a majority of the population to give it to me?


2) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. -- Remember, however, Marx lived before the age of the automobile. I don't think it is feasible, nor do I think it is necessary, nor do I think this statement is any indication, that personal transportation is to be stripped of people.

What happens if everyone decides they want a car? There is not enough raw material on the planet to give everyone a car and we'd be choking in air pollution within months.

What happens?


It's not about "potential for maliciousness" -- it is about the material conditions to satisfy it's existence.

Same thing.


However much that argument alone does not contradict your overall point, your overall point is still based on your extremely flawed understanding of socialism which you maintain requires centralization -- and I maintain opposes it. So let's argue that if you'd like to prove this true, because without that, your argument holds no water.

History and the statements of members of this board show it to be true, no matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la la la I'm not listening".

In order for a society to transform from capitalist to socialist, massive reform and revolution needs to take place, which will require centralized coordination. Many of your compatriots will use coercive force, centralized under your control, to wrest property from owners, put down resistance, and liquidate the religious. Bingo, your centralized control. It cannot be done without centralized control or you either have anarchy or civil war - there is no other possibility. No great "class consciousness" is going to sweep like a wave over a region, country, or the world where workers just decide one day to start voting on how many diesel engines they're going to produce - the whole system is going to have to be centralized before it can be decentralized properly - you said yourself the revolution isn't going to happen overnight.

My argument is that once that power is centralized, even for the purpose of one day decentralizing it when the "revolution" is "complete", it's never going to really decentralize because the people with power are going to refuse to allow it - ala Castro or Stalin. They'll do so with the very justification you yourself supported: the revolution isn't complete yet and needs more guidance.


As for why capitalism progresses towards fascism, my argument about material conditions, no matter how simple it may sound, does hold water. And we can go into that further if you like as well.

Your argument "holds water" in that you've provided a whopping one example - one - in all of history, along with a theory of what must happen in the future when markets have been saturated and there are no more 3rd world countries to exploit. That's it, that's all you've offered. That and a lot of opinion.

We've both offered a lot of opinion. Neither of us has a monopoly on the facts, sport. You like to think your opinion is fact, which isn't surprising considering the assertions you like to make about the economies of France and Germany which have no basis in fact at all. My opinion is just that too. I can't prove that if the whackjobs on this board led a glorious people's revolution that they'd end up purging one another to see who can lead the most "pure" revolution and do so in an authoritarian manner, can I? Just like you can't prove that the supply and distribution chains of every necessary product will magically agree on everything and that demand will never incrase to create scarcity. It's all theory and philosophy we are arguing here so stop pretending much of anything we say is based on "fact".

Except, of course, when you try to make claims that Germany and France are heading for socialism in due time without bothering to know much of anything about their political or economic issues, or claiming that the United States is close to some workers' revolution. I mean for God's sake the most un-socialist President in our history drew a good chunk of his support from the uneducated underclass (especially in the South).



But again, you maintain capitalism is about individual ownership, which is not the case, but simply private ownership -- again, look at the stock market.

Are all companies publicly held?

Who owns stock? Does society as a whole own stock in every company and excercise power over those companies democratically, or...think about this now, really give it your best high-school try, do individuals purchase stock in exchange for their own assets?




Since when did the state and the whole of society become that interchangeable to warrant compatibility. Unless your state is 100% democratic for all people, it cannot be considered society.

That's exactly what you advocated above, sport. 100% democratic political and economic decision-making by the society. Society becomes the state becomes the government. I'd rather be at the mercy of our federal government as it exists now than I would be at the mercy of a tyranny of the majority.

[NovelGentry]

You'll gladly excercise complete control during the "revolution", which you yourself have said wouldn't end for a period of decades.

I will not... no, but I can't speak for the rest of the pissed off workers. But what I can say, is that if they have any level of class consciousness, this will be an undertaking of the proletariat as a whole. Not JUST the communists.


I'm sorry, but I do not take it on faith that if people like you and the other whackjobs on this board will eventually decide one day the "people" have completed the revolution and simply hand over the reigns of power.

Neither would I. That's why I don't promote that sort of centralized power.


Hence, if people like you or the other loons on this board took over, we'd never have the communist utopia you advocate in the other thread. Instead, you'd fight amongst each other, arguing over whose version of the "revolution" is more pure. You'd want to kill the people who dare to want to stay in their homes, NoXiom would want to kill all the religious people, and Rice would just want to kill everyone.

I don't think arguing will be as big of a problem as you think... the rest is just laughable.


So, you're basing your claim that capitalism devolves into fascism because of one example, Germany in the 1930s. And yet I'm not allowed to claim socialism results in authoritarianism using examples of what happened in pretty much every socialist nation on earth in history.

No, I'm basing my claim that capitalism devolves into fascism because of the need for the bourgeoisie to distract the people from themselves as an enemy and to maintain authoritarian control in order to protect their dated attempts at keeping the worker in line. -- Germany just happens to be a good example.

You create an enemy to the state, spreat propaganda about that enemy, get people into fear to support "the state" and then begin the perpetual task of destroying rights while they're all hoohawing over the enemy while simultaneously attacking the enemy to uphold your self-righteous claim.


Idiot, the United States had quite a depression in the 1930s as well. We did not turn into a fascist state last I heard. Therefore your assertion that capitalism --> depression ---> fascism is refuted. Have a nice day.

This is not my assertion. My assertion is far more complex, however, let me also remind you that WWII did jumpstart our economy -- and let me also remind you it wasn't that long after before people's rights were being violated under the false claim of the communist threat.

It is not as clear cut as jumping directly to fascism, although no doubt, some variable conditions would make one leap a lot quicker than another.


I'm pretty sure Marx said the same thing in 1848

Where precisely? Both in the sense... where did he say this and where was it supposed to rise up?


and Lenin said the same thing in 1917.

I would hope so, he was attempting to make it.


Yes. The reelection of a President who advocates the ownership society and tax cuts for the rich really indicates we are on the road to socialism.

Keep dreaming.

I do no base this statement on who is president. You've failed to grasp the ideology in full -- and the only way you can really try and rip it down, as you have proven, is to separate small portions of what I have said from the rest of what I have said, or mix and match the words of different idnividuals on this board, or just the same quote something of theirs out of context and pair it with something else another one of us has said.

You believe this has something to do with who is president, and I do not understand why. Then you revert to a shallow statement like "keep dreaming" as if to assert that somehow you have taken the high ground and that I should just back off on the argument.

I'm not going to restate my reasons why. They are littered throughout our other arguments, and around the board -- but I'm not going to allow you to attribute the idiocy of your arguments to my own. The machinery of capitalism is far beyond the president's capacity.


These are fairly moronic statements which indicate You're not paying any attention to events in those countries, or you're good at deluding yourself.

Yes it was a typo.

But again, you've failed to see what I actually said -- more, you've actually quoted me out of context to purposefully make me look foolish.

If you actually had continued reading what I was saying you would have read this part: "However, what I think may have been overlooked far too much was that WWII for Americans advanced capitalism, while for the greater part of Europeans extended it due to the destruction of a vast amount of the means of production." -- I am disagreeing with Redstar, I do NOT think they are in a position to see socialism first, or particularly soon for that matter, and I would extend it decades after the US.

I believe WWII gave capitalism a new lease on life in these countries by destroying a large portion of the means of production. Again, MATERIAL arguments. Capitalism would be the most NECESSARY thing to rebuild such a nation, and indeed was probably one of the most pressing material realities the USSR had to face as well.


Um, you need to be more specific, your point makes no sense.

Why do people purchase stock if they don't intend to gain from their private ownership of that stock?

Are you playing stupid again? or are you just, in fact, stupid? You're claiming that capitalism has founded in it individual ownership -- this is not the case, merely private ownership. When one buys stock the stock is not actually what he's buying, it is representative of a portion of a companies value -- this is to say you become partial owner of a company -- this is to say, individual ownership is not inherent in capitalism, only private ownership. Private does not equal individual. You can have a number of individuals who privately own something, and there is no single individual owner, but there remains private ownership.


Another stupid assertion and another contradiction.

You just said above, "I believe the only way to maintain the property rights granted under capitalism while continuing the growth of it's productive forces is THROUGH fascism." So you think capitalism does not imply fascism but that in capitalism property rights, on which capitalism depends, can only be maintained through fascism?

I get tired of asking this, but which is it?


Maybe imply was not the right word. The point is quite simply, just because a nation is capitalist does not mean it IS fascist, but merely that it progresses towards fascism. Much the same way a child can become a man, but a child is not a man, nor does the child become a man no matter what, as it may very well die in the process of living. The child represents capitalism, and the man represents fascism -- much like the child, it could die before ever seeing manhood, but much like the child, it does not really have a choice at progressing towards becoming a man.


I don't even assert that socialism "seeks" to create authoritarianism. As a theory it's neutral on the political aspects. My assertion is simply that socialism leads to authoritarianism because people are not angels and so the people who "lead" the socialist effort eventually take power for themselves, much like Napolean the pig in Animal Farm.

Right... a subjective argument "people are bad, people fuck up... people are greedy." And even still, in order to make this assertion you assume that socialism is a centrlaized movement from the start. This is completely contradictory to what socialism IS as a decentralized economic system giving power to the hands of the the people who actually produce. You cannot give power to the producers with centralized authoritarian control. So the examples you actually maintain are NOT socialism, nor could they ever be in the way they are formed. The power HAS to be decentralized for it to even make sense with the term.

My assertions on why capitalism leads to fascism are material. Technology outgrows bourgeois control... Authoritarianism extends to uphold control. The problem, however, is that we do have some semblance of democracy -- so strict authoritarianism cannot simply come about without the masses getting pissed off. Thus, the bourgeoisie uses it's tool of class oppression (the state) to, in essence, strenghten itself by creating fales enemies of the state. The policy becomes: "If you do not support our government, you do not support America!" -- thus patriotism is paired quite strictly with the state... voila Fascism.

This is of course the difference in our thinking... you like to make it an argument of the morals of the people. You firmly believe it is people and their ideas which create and progress society and thus, the history of man. I much prefer to make it an argument about material reality, where the wishes and ideals of men become too limited to actually face these material conditions, and thus are FORCED to move forward or to change.


Capitalism is the same as socialism in this regard - it neither seeks nor tries to actively avoid fascism per se, though it's basic principle really contradicts the basic principles of fascism.

I do not pretend either system is conscious of it's own nature, but people can be conscious of it's nature -- and should be. Agreed that it neither seeks nor tries to actively avoid fascism, and neither do those who are unconscious of it's nature, but when I use the term "seeks" I'm using it more to represent the idea that it's moving towards a point -- regardless of any level of consciousness within it. However, one can only assume that when enough people become conscious of these things, they will, quite literally, seek to avoid and oppose them, and that is the essence of class struggle.


In terms of pure, direct democracy I don't disagree. Your problem is that the United States never has been a pure, direct democracy nor do I advocate or even desire pure, direct democracy. That's because it's too inefficient to run a modern state any bigger than Switzerland; though its principles can be incorporated by allowing referenda as California does.

They've really got you convinced eh? Unfortunately, this is not the case. Modern day technology would make it quite possible to organize a HUGE and massive vote on a number of issues on a daily basis while taking up very little time. Furthermore, this itself is not even necessary if you cut down on the role of the federal government and work more within local bounds.

This is of course what communal organization is all about in communism, and the other economic organization we see within socialism. You see it as inefficient because of the way things are, analyzing the current method, and taking from it the idea that we all need to decide on these federal issues. And then you apply that to direct democracy and wonder "How would all people be able to vote on all these issues that go through congress with any realistic efficiency?" -- the simple answer is, they shouldn't. Well over 90% of the laws congress pushes through really don't make any sense federally, hell probably even more than that.

Some massive and sweeping federal decision is somehow supposed to make sense for all the diverse local realms? Not likely. Even the state level is much further up than it needs to be. Why should a decision on gay marriage effect all cities/towns regardless of what the strength of the homosexual community is in those cities/towns? What does it matter if if the town 10 miles over allows such a thing and you don't?

Of course, you may agree with this. And maybe some extreme US Libertarians will agree with this. You agree with it, and yet you cannot understand the efficiency of such a situation. But there would rarely be issues that popped up on that federal level. How long did it take you to vote in the US election (assuming you did)?

Something like that maybe quarter yearly on issues which truly affect or should affect ALL people is too inefficient? Mind you these would be BIG issue. For example, if the US was run this way, you would have seen an issue no doubt on whether or not to give the president the right to preemptively strike Iraq.

The problem is, this doesn't help them maintain control. You talk about my contradictions... here you are talking about the inefficiency of decentralizing power, and the flaws of a centralized system -- and you don't even realize how centralized your system is.


Do you really think society would run smoothly if 300 million people voted on every single issue? Didn't you advocate a basic system of representative democracy where workers vote on representatives who can be recalled in the other thread anyway?

Again, you simply don't understand. They don't vote on every issue -- because not every issue should be a federal issue. Not every issue should even be a state issue... in fact, most of these issues should probably effect populations of under several thousand people -- whether it even becomes an issue for them is questionable. Using the gay marriage example again, if you have a town with absolutely no homosexual people -- would this issue even ever come up? who would propose it?

Understand the vision you have in your head is not what we propose. Forget everything you think you know about what I stand for and actually listen to what I am saying.


Is it self-government to ban religion, take children away from parents, or force people into labor or living quarters as many people on this board have advocated?

Here we go again. Religion if you ask me is a real non-issue. If they remain blinded by religion this is never going to happen to begin with... It is not just the fashion to be atheist if you're communism, those who understand, understand the obvious contradiction. If people are supporting this type of movement -- if the masses truly want this, they will be very much the same -- the opposition to religion will be very much in line with the opposition to the bourgeoisie, because from our perspective, their goals, and even their actions are formed from one and the same body.

Much like the bourgeoisie, the brunt of this is going to be swept away in the uprising itself -- NOT afterwards. You really have to stop using the USSR as a model... it's power shifts occured in very miniscule times, and is more in line with a coup than what form a normal revolution would probably take.

I have little doubt it would span years, and I have little doubt it would most likely be cosnidered civil war from an outsiders perspective.

As far as taking children away, and forcing people into labor, or living quarters... well, everyone's ideas will differ. But even rice has clearly admitted we are not taking children AWAY from parents. This is not "steal your baby" day. Forcing people into labor is priceisely what the current system does, we only seek to extend it to the bourgeoisie as has been the case for the workers for so long. I'm simply not sure where you got the living quarters shit from.


You say tomato I say tom-ahto. If "society" is voting by direct democracy on whether I can teach my children religion, then it's an oppressive government.

I don't see why there would ever be a vote on such an issue. Again, it would be something of a non-issue, and probably something of an unwritten rule. That is to say, I do not suspect any majority of people to maintain religious beliefs and be capable of opposing existing society -- as such, religion IS in opposition to our cause, but it is resolved individually with those who would join our cause -- and is done so before revolution.

I don't see too many people reading bibles out loud in the streets, and when I do, it is more often the case that it is some right-wing nutjob who would oppose us in a much more violent sense come time for revolution. Such people will be wiped off the face of the planet, not in particular because I want them to be, although I really can't say I mind, but because that will be the nature of the revolution.

I can only picture post-revolutionary society laughing and suppressing religion in a very fair sense -- that is, treating it as what it is, myth and superstition. I cannot recall the last time I saw anyone building a place for the sole purpose of myth and superstition... and I cannot believe the majority of people would be inclined to do anything of the following: build church, build schools for religion, print bibles, create religious jewelry or "talismans" as one might properly call them.

If you pull some kid aside and start tlaking to him about Jesus and this and that, I can't picture the child even taking you seriously. The problem is of course, when you start instilling this into children (your own or others) as an oppression of that child. I talked about this with you before though, so you should know my position on it.

The revolution would wipe it clean (and yes, with force) and the society that prevails would not see it as an issue. But again, I see no reason why you think one will be prone to such belief -- at least no one on the side of the proletariat majority.

I'm already well aware of what your responses to all this is... "Don't expect people to give up relgion to fight for this new society" blah blah balh "people hold on" blah blah blah.. "you're going to have a lot less than you think on your side." blah blah blah

There are logical contradictions in all of this -- if our mindset is NOT the majority mindset, we're never going to succeed to begin with, so you have nothing to worry about.

----

With all that said... I really don't feel like talking to you anymore. You have far too difficult a time understanding even our simplest concepts -- you twist and bend words (like the example above where you didn't even finish my quote) and then tried to pass it off as if I was saying Germany or France were gonna see socialism soon... strange too that I specifically mentioned 30 years, so even if you thought I was implying they would see it within 30 years, what good does your current articles do?

I have no illusions that capitalism is in full swing right now and is going about it's daily business... but I carry no illusions that one day it will be supplanted either. Nothing lasts forever, and if you think capitalism is the end of man's history in terms of socio-economic/political progression you're far too close minded for me to even respect what few good arguments you do put across.

There will be an end to this stage in history, and I am confident it's successor will be socialism, and it's progression will be in line with the material progression of history which Marx made clear in his writing. If I'm wrong about my US estimates, I still have little doubt it is inevitable. You are of course free to disagree, and you do.

[NovelGentry]

Oh, and I just want to remind everyone in here with my preceeding post... this is why we have opposing ideologies. If we allowed you people to run about the board uncontrolled we'd have to deal with this shit everywhere, and we'd have no way to actually talk about and develop our own ideas in contradiction to yours. To me, it has become a far more important issue to work within our ideology than continually try and oppose your mindsets, which I'm already quite aware CANNOT change without significant enough material change in your own lives.

With that said, it doesn't mean I will never post in this section again -- just pointing out that the existence of this section as a separate mass, gives me the possibility to do so and "take a vacation."

[t_wolves_fan]

I will not... no, but I can't speak for the rest of the pissed off workers. But what I can say, is that if they have any level of class consciousness, this will be an undertaking of the proletariat as a whole. Not JUST the communists.

So your vision happens if a whole hell of a lot of people reach a very similar "consciousness" all at the same time. Without being led or forced, of course.

Good luck.



No, I'm basing my claim that capitalism devolves into fascism because of the need for the bourgeoisie to distract the people from themselves as an enemy and to maintain authoritarian control in order to protect their dated attempts at keeping the worker in line. -- Germany just happens to be a good example.

It also happens to be the only example you've offered up so far.




Idiot, the United States had quite a depression in the 1930s as well. We did not turn into a fascist state last I heard. Therefore your assertion that capitalism --> depression ---> fascism is refuted. Have a nice day.

This is not my assertion. My assertion is far more complex, however, let me also remind you that WWII did jumpstart our economy -- and let me also remind you it wasn't that long after before people's rights were being violated under the false claim of the communist threat.

Yes, it was your assertion. You said Germany was a capitalist state that went into depression after which fascism naturally followed. Stop changing your story.

What rights were being violated under threat of communist threat? McCarthy's trials? Those didn't last long and were quickly ended, and McCarthy became a pariah. Perhaps if the Committee on Unamerican Activities were alive and well and supported today you might have a point. Instead, you are grasping at straws.


I do no base this statement on who is president.

Maybe you should, you might stop making unrealistic claims.


You believe this has something to do with who is president, and I do not understand why.

Well let's see: you make the following claim: "I believe socialism is a lot closer than many of us suspect, and I believe the development of consciousness will be extremely rapid, particularly here in the US. "

Now, when you make the claim that socialism is "close", especially here in the US, I have to look at the current political climate in the US. If you're incapable of associating the likelihood of a political sea change in a country with its present political climate, then perhaps your knowledge of politics is not substantial enough for us to have this conversation.

Anyway, the idea that a socialist revolution is "close" in a country should be supported by political reality, don't you think? So let's look at the political reality: The United States just re-elected a President that is perhaps the most opposed to socialism in our history. He was re-elected with substantial support (http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_education_vote.htm) from the uneducated lower-class on which your socialist revolution would depend (especially in the South). Not only was a President re-elected who is much opposed to your mythical revolution, but the party most opposed to your ideals gained seats in Congress.

Now, I don't know to what degree you are capable of dissociating reality from what goes on in your head, but most people would look at that data and not be able to support the claim that we are "close" to a socialist revolution.

Take for example baseball. I am a Milwaukee Brewers' fan. They suck. Your claim that a socialist revolution is "close" is like me saying the Brewers are "close" to being a world series team.

Ya get what I'm saying, champ?


I'm not going to restate my reasons why. They are littered throughout our other arguments, and around the board -- but I'm not going to allow you to attribute the idiocy of your arguments to my own. The machinery of capitalism is far beyond the president's capacity.

Ah, I see. So now you are suggesting the President has no influence on the economy or on our economic system.

Then why label him or his government a fascist? I mean, a fascist has complete control and would use the tools of the state to enforce the existing capitalist system, right?

So if the capitalist system is "far beyond the President's capacity", how can he possibly be fascist?


I believe WWII gave capitalism a new lease on life in these countries by destroying a large portion of the means of production. Again, MATERIAL arguments. Capitalism would be the most NECESSARY thing to rebuild such a nation, and indeed was probably one of the most pressing material realities the USSR had to face as well.

Big question: If communism is so great, why is it incapable of rebuilding a society or making great advancements? Why do you need to rely on a system you think is inferior to get you to the promise land?



Are you playing stupid again? or are you just, in fact, stupid? You're claiming that capitalism has founded in it individual ownership -- this is not the case, merely private ownership. When one buys stock the stock is not actually what he's buying, it is representative of a portion of a companies value -- this is to say you become partial owner of a company -- this is to say, individual ownership is not inherent in capitalism, only private ownership. Private does not equal individual. You can have a number of individuals who privately own something, and there is no single individual owner, but there remains private ownership.

Irrelevant. Just because a bunch of individuals partner to own a company does not diminish inidividual ownership. Most of the biggest companies in our society grew as individually-owned companies, not publicly-held.

Why do people purchase stock? Do they purchase stock because they hope the other 12 million shareholders agree with them or do they purchase it to improve their individual financial condition?


Maybe imply was not the right word. The point is quite simply, just because a nation is capitalist does not mean it IS fascist, but merely that it progresses towards fascism. Much the same way a child can become a man, but a child is not a man, nor does the child become a man no matter what, as it may very well die in the process of living. The child represents capitalism, and the man represents fascism -- much like the child, it could die before ever seeing manhood, but much like the child, it does not really have a choice at progressing towards becoming a man.

You're starting to lose it on this one.

So if the child doesn't die (i.e. capitalist state keeps on going), it must become fascist?

We've been capitalist for 229 years. When do you envision we'll turn fascist?

By the way, your point previously was that communism needs capitalism to develop into socialism into communism. Now you're saying it develops by definition into fascism.

So which is it, does capitalism develop into socialism into communism, or into fascism?

Why hasn't the United States evolved into either yet?

Oh I forgot, because we just re-elected a fascist government, we're right around the corner from turning socialist. Or something like that.


This is of course the difference in our thinking... you like to make it an argument of the morals of the people. You firmly believe it is people and their ideas which create and progress society and thus, the history of man. I much prefer to make it an argument about material reality, where the wishes and ideals of men become too limited to actually face these material conditions, and thus are FORCED to move forward or to change.

Your version isn't much supported by history. Take for example the American revolution. It wasn't people of limited material wealth who advocated independence. Even the Russian revolution took place only after the bourgoise lost confidence in the Czar.



They've really got you convinced eh? Unfortunately, this is not the case. Modern day technology would make it quite possible to organize a HUGE and massive vote on a number of issues on a daily basis while taking up very little time. Furthermore, this itself is not even necessary if you cut down on the role of the federal government and work more within local bounds.

Your problem is that today's issues are far too complex to vote on quickly and most issues cross local boundaries.

You want Joe Bob at the Jiffy Lube to pick up the voting joystick and vote "quickly" on international trade treaties? How about on mercury emissions from the local power plant? Joe Bob might not have a problem with the mercury emissions from the plant in his neighborhood, but the commune 50 miles away sure might. Again, what if the local power plant commune votes to keep producing mercury despite the pleas of the community 50 miles away?


This is of course what communal organization is all about in communism,

Then it's even more unrealistic than I thought. Too many issues are now intra-national and global in nature to be decided upon at the communal level; and too complex for the average working stiff to understand.


the simple answer is, they shouldn't. Well over 90% of the laws congress pushes through really don't make any sense federally, hell probably even more than that.

Such as? Please, you seem to claim you are knowledgeable of the issues with which our federal government operates. I'd like to hear some of your examples.


Of course, you may agree with this. And maybe some extreme US Libertarians will agree with this. You agree with it, and yet you cannot understand the efficiency of such a situation. But there would rarely be issues that popped up on that federal level. How long did it take you to vote in the US election (assuming you did)?

I agree with federalism and you are right, there are a few issues on which the federal government legislates that should be left to local decision-making.

What does the length of my wait to vote have to do with what you are talking about?


Something like that maybe quarter yearly on issues which truly affect or should affect ALL people is too inefficient? Mind you these would be BIG issue. For example, if the US was run this way, you would have seen an issue no doubt on whether or not to give the president the right to preemptively strike Iraq.

LOL. You have no real understanding of how interconnected so many issues are today, do you?


and you don't even realize how centralized your system is.

Are you an American?



Again, you simply don't understand. They don't vote on every issue -- because not every issue should be a federal issue. Not every issue should even be a state issue... in fact, most of these issues should probably effect populations of under several thousand people -- whether it even becomes an issue for them is questionable.

Irrelevant. Federal or local, if the issue comes up they have to vote on it, right?


Religion if you ask me is a real non-issue. If they remain blinded by religion this is never going to happen to begin with... It is not just the fashion to be atheist if you're communism, those who understand, understand the obvious contradiction. If people are supporting this type of movement -- if the masses truly want this, they will be very much the same -- the opposition to religion will be very much in line with the opposition to the bourgeoisie, because from our perspective, their goals, and even their actions are formed from one and the same body.

Something like 90% of the world's population practices one religion or another.

You've got a lot of work to do.

And answering, "oh, people just won't believe in religion" is pretty easy.


As far as taking children away, and forcing people into labor, or living quarters... well, everyone's ideas will differ. But even rice has clearly admitted we are not taking children AWAY from parents. This is not "steal your baby" day. Forcing people into labor is priceisely what the current system does,

You said in socialism you work or you die. You said in communism you work (as part of society) or society dies.


we only seek to extend it to the bourgeoisie as has been the case for the workers for so long.

So it's about revenge then. Petty.



as such, religion IS in opposition to our cause, but it is resolved individually with those who would join our cause -- and is done so before revolution.

What happens to people who do not join your cause? You've said before there would be bloodshed.


I don't see too many people reading bibles out loud in the streets, and when I do, it is more often the case that it is some right-wing nutjob who would oppose us in a much more violent sense come time for revolution. Such people will be wiped off the face of the planet, not in particular because I want them to be, although I really can't say I mind, but because that will be the nature of the revolution.

Niiiiiice. At least I finally got you to admit it.

Maybe you can use the old ovens still left at Auschwitz.


I can only picture post-revolutionary society laughing and suppressing religion in a very fair sense -- that is, treating it as what it is, myth and superstition.

Didn't you say in another thread you want people to be free from having beliefs forced on them?

This really doesn't seem to jive very well with that statement.


I cannot recall the last time I saw anyone building a place for the sole purpose of myth and superstition... and I cannot believe the majority of people would be inclined to do anything of the following: build church, build schools for religion, print bibles, create religious jewelry or "talismans" as one might properly call them.

What if...now think about it for a second, because it is possible...people have the audacity to disagree with you?


If you pull some kid aside and start tlaking to him about Jesus and this and that, I can't picture the child even taking you seriously. The problem is of course, when you start instilling this into children (your own or others) as an oppression of that child. I talked about this with you before though, so you should know my position on it.

Right. Your position is that if people instill beliefs in children that don't mesh with yours, it's oppression. If, on the other hand, they instill beliefs that do mesh with yours through the peer pressure you advocate above, then that's progress.

You're just another radical leftist who is completely intolerant of opposing value and opinion.


There are logical contradictions in all of this -- if our mindset is NOT the majority mindset, we're never going to succeed to begin with, so you have nothing to worry about.

Well, fortunately, despite your claim that your revolution is right around the corner, you really are in a teeny, tiny, wittle minority right now. Which probably pisses you off but satisfies and entertains me greatly.


With all that said... I really don't feel like talking to you anymore. You have far too difficult a time understanding even our simplest concepts -

I understand your simplest concept perfectly, and it is this: "Everyone is just going to magically agree with us, those who don't will be laughed at at best and liquidated at worst. We are going to ignore human nature and just assume everything will work out, in our fantasy land with purple skies and dancing unicorns."


you twist and bend words (like the example above where you didn't even finish my quote) and then tried to pass it off as if I was saying Germany or France were gonna see socialism soon... strange too that I specifically mentioned 30 years, so even if you thought I was implying they would see it within 30 years, what good does your current articles do?

I'm not twisting your words, I'm asking specific questions. You don't have any answers except, "everyone will agree with us".

I'll take your bet. 2035, Germany and France will be socialist. Got it.


I have no illusions that capitalism is in full swing right now and is going about it's daily business... but I carry no illusions that one day it will be supplanted either. Nothing lasts forever, and if you think capitalism is the end of man's history in terms of socio-economic/political progression you're far too close minded for me to even respect what few good arguments you do put across.

Ooohhh...nothing like the self-appointed intellectual elite telling me how simplistic and stupid I am. I'm really hurt.


You are of course free to disagree, and you do.

I'm only free to disagree because people like you aren't in power.

[NovelGentry]

It also happens to be the only example you've offered up so far.

Since I said I'm pretty much done here, I'm not gonna take the time to answer all things, but I find it interesting you can't find your own "examples" Just look for anywhere fascism rose. Spain saw depression beginning in the 1930's and was met with civil war between socialists/anarchists and fascists when Franco installed himself. Look to any decent biography on Mussolini and you'll see his rise to power was on the curve of rising inflation and unemployment, and general economic hardship. While these cases are certainly not as bad as Germany's depression (at least not to my knowledge) -- fascism, like socialism, will be founded on the brink of democratic capitalism's troubles.

---

On the issue of being close. I don't hold politics to be spread simply by idea alone, I hold materialism as the fundamental groundwork for history's progression, that is inherent in the idea that I'm a Marxist -- thus, the current political climate does nothing more than support my statements -- come back when you're looking at the current political climate in 2012 thanks to all the money Bush has sucked up. Mind, when I said close, I did say within 30 years. Don't think the current political climate is unbreakable within that time.

[t_wolves_fan]

I didn't think you'd be able to answer any of my questions.

Let's see, you want more examples of countries that faced economic hardship and ended up capitalist:

United States
Mexico
Every country in western Europe except Germany, Spain and Italy in the 1930s.
Russia and every country in Eastern Europe as a result of Communism's fall in the early 1990s (remember, it was their economic problems that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. By your logic, they all should have turned socialist. Approximately ZERO ended up doing so).
Every country in Asia at the present (there has been an economic crisis in Asia since about 2000 and they're all still capitalist. Even China, which hasn't faced such an economic crisis, is moving more towards capitalism).

That's a lot of examples ace. Don't you agree?

I love the way your philosophy says your revolution will happen no matter what. That's a powerful built-in mechanism for self-delusion. "Any day now, any day now, any day now..." Much easier than admitting you might be wrong.

As far as the United States in the future, it's entirely possible we might go socialist. I agree Bush has done a good job fucking up our future. However, I've got two past events that back up my belief that we'll come out of it still capitalist: 1>The Great Depression, which was probably worse than anything we're going to face in the future, and 2>The economic turnaround of 1992-2000. Before it began we were hearing stories of impending doom due to economic stagnation and deficits. You were probably in grade school at the time so don't remember any of that, but that's what happened.

I can just picture you in 2015, assuming you haven't grown up, arguing on-line that therevolution is certain to occur in 2045. Just like I'll be certain that the Brewers are finally going to win the fucking World Series "next year".

:lol:

[1936]

The revolution is happening as we speak, just in countrys that genetically as a american you see as nothing more then a piece of land to step on.

But it is happening there, and it will happen here.