Explain your Socialist theory...

[CaptainCapitalist]

Hey guys, im new to the board and i was really interested as to what drives most of you so called 'socialists'. I always hear leftists talk about the evils of capitalism and how it tramples over the worker, and just wanted to hear your idividual theories about how socialism could right all the wrongs you percieve in our capitalist society. For example, you talk about how the workers in capitalism are never seeing the real profit they would under a socialist structure. Is there any form of management or do the workers control EVERYTHING. If thats the case how is profit distributed in socialism? Wages? Commission? Honest questions i have and would really like to see your own theories. I dont want an essay but just a general run-down on how society would run. Or even better could you link me any sites that elaborate these theories? Thanks.

[JudeObscure84]

You're going to get a dozen responses on different views on how to establish a socialsit system. Personally I am what is international known as a Christian Democrat. I favor elements of welfare while still retaining a market economy. My personal favorite politicians are Tony Blair, Eduardo Frei, Michelle Bachelet, Jalal Talibani, Vaclav Havel. In American politics I guess I would favor Bill Clinton, John MCain and George W. Bush (because of social spending).

Whatever thier outlook is on economics and social redristubition is what I am for.

http://www.labour.org.uk/home

http://www.grantham-online.co.uk/ppimageupload/image1924.JPG
http://www.labour.org.uk/ourpolicies

http://www.idc-cdi.org/

[Connolly]

So, basically your asking us to predict the future down to how factories are run, management structures and distribution?

Well, im not a god - so I cant. Anything else is idealist shit.

We Marxists look at history and come to conclusions as to the next societal phase - nothing in detail!!


favorite politicians are Tony Blair

Falling for the smooth talker then?

What a lieing manipulative shepherd he is.

And your the sheep :lol: :lol:

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

So, basically your asking us to predict the future down to how factories are run, management structures and distribution?
You want a planned economy, but you have no idea how it's going to be planned (are you just going to hope that someone else does it?) That's clever.
As I believe Pubilus once posted:

1- Revolution!
2-??????????
3- Paradise!


We Marxists look at history and come to conclusions as to the next societal phase - nothing in detail!!
Blindly groping your way into an undescribable future, what a wonderful way to end up in paradise. Not.

[Tre]

Tony Blair :o

Favourite politician or favourite actor?

[Connolly]

You want a planned economy, but you have no idea how it's going to be planned (are you just going to hope that someone else does it?) That's clever.
As I believe Pubilus once posted:

1- Revolution!
2-??????????
3- Paradise!



:lol: :lol:

Your ignorance makes me laugh.

You seem to like putting words in my mouth.

You criticise the viability of communism, yet you know nothing of materialism....great!! ;)

You also seem to mistake me for some "all knowing" Leninist. :o

Put some question marks after the nature of the revolution - since I dont know what form it will take - it has never happened.

[redstar2000]

What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

:lol: :lol:

Your ignorance makes me laugh.
My ignorance makes you laugh? You're the one who admits to not having a clue what to do after the revolution.

You seem to like putting words in my mouth.
They're your own words, not mine.

You criticise the viability of communism, yet you know nothing of materialism....great!! ;)
Who says?

[Connolly]

You're the one who admits to not having a clue what to do after the revolution.

Again, you seem to think us communists are god like.

How exactly do you expect me to know what to do after the revolution?

Communists struggle for the advancement of the proletariat, not only because they see their exploitation, but because history suggests that they are the class who will "inherit" the earth.

I could give a whole list of predictions and possible scenarios as to what will happen during and after the revolution - but who am I to predict these things?....Who am I to implement how I think the factories should be run?
Things change, im here in the present - revolution is in the future - historical lessons are in the past.

What you ask for is impossible.


Who says?

I say.

Im still waiting for you to state plausibly how we can detach ourselves from material reality.

[JudeObscure84]

Tony Blair

Favourite politician or favourite actor?

Favorite enough to win prime minister again. :D


Falling for the smooth talker then?

What a lieing manipulative shepherd he is.

And your the sheep

The man has been investigated twice and has come out clean. Only whack far-leftist opposition groups believe he is the "shepherd of lies". I could say the same that you believe those groups so you can call yourself a "free-thinker".

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:40 PM
Favorite enough to win prime minister again. :D
You obviously know nothing about present-day British politics if you believe that Tony Bliar, sorry Blair, was re-elected because he is a "favourite" amongst the general public.

Labour only won because there is no real and viable alternative to vote for.


The man has been investigated twice and has come out clean. Only whack far-leftist opposition groups believe he is the "shepherd of lies".

Actually I know a hell of a lot of non-leftists who believe that our Prime Minister is a liar, for the simple reason that he has lied again and again.

In fact, the whole Cabinet lie through their teeth.

Just check out Jack - the man of - Straw.

[Publius]

Put some question marks after the nature of the revolution - since I dont know what form it will take - it has never happened.

What a stupid point to argue from, then.

"We should have a revolution. We don't know what we'll do after the revolution, we aren't sure the revolution will actually emancipate the proleteriat, we aren't sure the revolution will even work, but we should have a revolution!"

How can someone NOT agree with that?


How about you try to tell me what form it will take, so I can refute it, instead of arguing from ignorance by saying 'it will happen' and it will lead to a 'communism'.

It's as intellectualy valid as me saying 'somewhere down the line, a bunch of capitalists are going to get together and make capitalism perfect, which will make communism unecessary'.

Logically, my theory is as valid as yours.

It provides no actual proof that it will happen (I'll just make something up. I'll call it... dialectics! Shit, taken. Uhhh. Dianetics! Shit, taken. Diabetics! Err. It'll do.), no evidence that this meeting will actually do what I say it will, no actual proof of anything, merely an unfalsifiable assertion.

I'll say it's based on 'historical ontologicalism'.

Sounds good to me.

[Publius]

Again, you seem to think us communists are god like.


Quite the contrary, actually.



How exactly do you expect me to know what to do after the revolution?

I don't know, maybe think. Use some logic. Some deductive or possibly inductive reasoning. Anything, really.

You argument, as it stands, is as good as "We don't know what is in the container, but it might be water from the fountain of youth, so let's drink it" or "We don't know what mixing these chemicals will do, but it might cure cancer, so let's do it".




Communists struggle for the advancement of the proletariat, not only because they see their exploitation, but because history suggests that they are the class who will "inherit" the earth.


Which is all based on the LTV, which I disagree with.



I could give a whole list of predictions and possible scenarios as to what will happen during and after the revolution - but who am I to predict these things?....Who am I to implement how I think the factories should be run?
Things change, im here in the present - revolution is in the future - historical lessons are in the past.

What a pointlessly fatalistic viewpoint.

"I'm going to revolt, but I feel I'm powerless to change things."



Im still waiting for you to state plausibly how we can detach ourselves from material reality.

Kill ourselves.

But that's another matter entirely.

[cyu]

Is there any form of management or do the workers control EVERYTHING. If thats the case how is profit distributed in socialism? Wages? Commission?

Anarcho-syndicalists believe in the principle of self-management. In other words, if a decision affects only one person, then that person makes the decision. If a decision affects more than one person, they those affected each get a vote weighted by how much each person is affected. This basically translates to a democratic corporate structure.

Revenue from sales is distributed by the employees democratically. Employees decide what pay levels the company will have. Personally, I believe in more equal pay levels, but if the employees disagree, I won't force them to do it a different way - I'd merely try to convince them that the larger the gap between rich and poor, the more harm it does to the economy, because more and more resources will be devoted to serving the wealthy, leaving less to serve everyone else.

[Publius]

Anarcho-syndicalists believe in the principle of self-management. In other words, if a decision affects only one person, then that person makes the decision. If a decision affects more than one person, they those affected each get a vote weighted by how much each person is affected. This basically translates to a democratic corporate structure.

Every economics decision necessarily effects everyone, because all resources are scarce, namely time and labor.

If you spend time doing something on your own, that's time spent not doing something with/for others.

In other words, you're deciding for them, what you're doing and your decisions effects (In theory) everyone in the entire economy.

It's a very nice pipe-dream, but it's totally divorced from the economic reality.

I could into more detail, if you want, but to summarize: You're wrong.



Revenue from sales is distributed by the employees democratically. Employees decide what pay levels the company will have.

Can you really not see any problems here?

Who is going to actively vote for a lesser share of the pie? None.



Personally, I believe in more equal pay levels, but if the employees disagree, I won't force them to do it a different way - I'd merely try to convince them that the larger the gap between rich and poor, the more harm it does to the economy, because more and more resources will be devoted to serving the wealthy, leaving less to serve everyone else.

But if the people voted on it democratically, how can it be wrong?

The only standard of value in absolute democracy IS absolute democracy.

You're attempting to apply objective values, to necessarily subjective, democratic ones.

That's actually a perfect illustration of why democracy, as you portray it, can't work: People disagree about the very precepts of democracy, of society.

You expect them to be able to reconcile these differences and work out a functioning economy? I doubt it.

[Connolly]

What a stupid point to argue from, then.

"We should have a revolution. We don't know what we'll do after the revolution, we aren't sure the revolution will actually emancipate the proleteriat, we aren't sure the revolution will even work, but we should have a revolution!"

How can someone NOT agree with that?


How about you try to tell me what form it will take, so I can refute it, instead of arguing from ignorance by saying 'it will happen' and it will lead to a 'communism'.

The only thing that would be stupid, is for me to go idealising about systems and managerial structures, falling directly into the hands of guys like you.

You may as well ask me the winning lotto numbers for next weeks draw.

What I could do however, is take the number patterns of previous draws and conclude the numbers most likley to emerge. It wouldnt guarantee a jackpot, but it would close the odds (however small a difference).

Its not possible to derive whole new detailed systems that have never existed unless I could see the future, just like how I cant predict the exact lotto numbers which could be drawn. I could, however, based on the previous reliability records of the machine drawing the numbers, come to a pretty accurate conclusion as to the quantity of balls the machine will draw.

Its pretty similar. I can predict some things with great accuracy (though not ultimate), while other, more detailed things with little or no accuracy.

I could be very convincing even to you, that the number of balls the machine will draw, will occur almost every time (assuming it was properly designed), while less convincing if I were to tell you next weeks lotto numbers.


It's a very nice pipe-dream, but it's totally divorced from the economic reality.

Im no economist. However, if you are implying the present system will remain for the rest of human existence, you are "divorced" from historical example and conclusions.


It's as intellectualy valid as me saying 'somewhere down the line, a bunch of capitalists are going to get together and make capitalism perfect, which will make communism unecessary'.

Logically, my theory is as valid as yours.

Your theory is devoid of historical example.


It provides no actual proof that it will happen

I cannot provide any proof that it WILL happen, nothing can be absolutely certain, just as no mechanical machine can be 100 percent efficient or reliable. We CAN come to accurate conclusions as to what will be the machines life span based on historical record - just as we CAN come to an accurate conclusion, based on historical record, that socialism is not only possible, but pretty much inevitable.


I'll say it's based on 'historical ontologicalism'

What we say is not ontological at all, but based on accurate prediction.


I don't know, maybe think. Use some logic. Some deductive or possibly inductive reasoning. Anything, really.

Some things are not logically possible to predict or formulate - so i wont.


Which is all based on the LTV, which I disagree with.

Elaborate.


What a pointlessly fatalistic viewpoint.

"I'm going to revolt, but I feel I'm powerless to change things."

Not at all fatalistic.


Kill ourselves.

But that's another matter entirely.

Its not when guys like you bring up completely irrational arguments like "everyone would just be greedy, therefore, the system would just collapse"

By the way, dosnt that require some kind of material action to cease thought and end your existence? unless you believe in the "soul" and "afterlife" for which thought continues beyond death. :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Every economics decision necessarily effects everyone, because all resources are scarce, namely time and labor.

If you spend time doing something on your own, that's time spent not doing something with/for others.

In other words, you're deciding for them, what you're doing and your decisions effects (In theory) everyone in the entire economy.

Obviously he refferred to significant decisions.

It is impossible to make a decision about every activity.

Anarcho syndicalism is not just theory in paper, it has been already experimented in such events like the Spanish Civil War.

I dare to say that anarchosynidcalism is the "anarcho" that has had more tangible results in history. This is because members of revolutionary unions aren't just "foot-soldiers", they participate in decision-making and practice direct action. A revolutionary union doesn't has a "president" or a "leader", instead it is managed in a decentralized fashion by democratic assemblies.

In America the IWW (Industrial workers of the world) could mobilize 300 000 workers at its peak. The IWW has been, and still is the most important anarchosyndicalist union in America.

In Spain, it was the CNT who mobilized millions of workers. In the spanish civil war workers took over factories and practiced democracy in the workplace. In most of this factories production actually rised.


Can you really not see any problems here?

Who is going to actively vote for a lesser share of the pie? None.

Its not that simple.

A worker who is reduced to a mere receptor of orders would be more susceptible to "vote" "egoistically".

However, what if all of them do the decisions collectively?

You would be surprised. ;)


he only standard of value in absolute democracy IS absolute democracy.

You're attempting to apply objective values, to necessarily subjective, democratic ones.

That's actually a perfect illustration of why democracy, as you portray it, can't work: People disagree about the very precepts of democracy, of society.

You expect them to be able to reconcile these differences and work out a functioning economy? I doubt it.

The most important thing in collective decision making is diversity.

If a person doesn't has an individual opinion, all that democratic shit becomes nullfied

[JudeObscure84]

You obviously know nothing about present-day British politics if you believe that Tony Bliar, sorry Blair, was re-elected because he is a "favourite" amongst the general public.

Labour only won because there is no real and viable alternative to vote for.

Apparently the other unreal less viable alternative couldnt convince people enough that he was a lying, war mongering, poodle that should be charged with crimes against humanity for him to be booted. I mean if these were serious charges, any viable alternative would be better than a war criminal. Im privy to UK opinion but Blair was still solid with his domestic policies. And to those that support him like myself know that he was being consistent with the Iraq because his speeches against Saddam go back to the 90's.



Actually I know a hell of a lot of non-leftists who believe that our Prime Minister is a liar, for the simple reason that he has lied again and again.

In fact, the whole Cabinet lie through their teeth.

Just check out Jack - the man of - Straw.

After two inquiries and all the mud slinging, the PM came out shining like a new suit. Unless, ofcourse you read essays from "Peace" institutes and Stop the War Coalition. Or perhaps you can take a page from anything put out by RESPECT, with the loveable Baathist kissing George Galloway. :lol:

Give it up. You people have too much ideological hatred to sustain a coherent crititque of PM Blair or any leader of the coalition.

[cyu]

Can you really not see any problems here?

Who is going to actively vote for a lesser share of the pie? None.


And why would this be a problem? If the employees decide everyone in the company should be paid equally, then more power to them. Like I've said before, the larger the gap between rich and poor, the more skewed the economy is to producing only for the rich, resulting in more scarcity for everyone else. One way to remedy this situation is to have progressive taxation. I just happen to prefer the anarcho-syndicalist solution.

[Connolly]

How about.............It dosnt matter who the fuck gets elected in this bourgeosie illusionist democracy. :lol:

[CaptainCapitalist]

So essentially what you people are telling me is socialism is so convoluted that none of you can agree on a specific theory that could top capitalism. Thats sad, i honestly thought socialist theory had more to offer. The Funniest thing about this entire board is that the software its run on was created by IPS incorporated, aside from the fact that you are all typing away about the evils of capitalism on Dell,Gateway,Sony PCs YOU FUCKING PAID FOR. How can you sit there with a straight face and expect me to believe you would rather live in a socialist society that would be completely incapable of making those same computers (if you think it could, please feel free to elaborate HOW it would). The Hypocracy would be overwhelming if it wasnt so hilarious. Im sure ol Che would be proud to know todays young 'revolutionaries' are relying on capitalist production to spread the word...good luck with the 'Revolution'.

[Atlas Swallowed]

What has Capitalism brought to the world besides starvation, war, inequality and misery so the few can hoard wealth?

Nobody has the magic answer(some Marxists, Maoists and Leninists are convinced they do :rolleyes: ) that you desire. Most of us see a world that is run badly and desire to change and are seeking a better way. I myself believe Anarchism with a socialist bent is the best way. An essay that explains in part why I support Anarchism.

http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_threear...oranarchism.htm (http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_threeargumentsforanarchism.htm)

A thread set up by another board member to help explain Anarchism to those who do not know it.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421

It easy to critisize when you yourself do nothing. To never try is to never fail but it is also fucking cowardly.

Thier are many different forms of Capitalism also and Capitalist countries wage war against each other all the time. Your argument is idiotic.

[CaptainCapitalist]

Do you people honestly think we could be having this same debate online under a socialist society? "Proleteriat works for the Commune,makes no profit in the process, Commune somehow has the capital to fund production of PC's,fiberoptic cable,broadband connection,cable modems,wireless hubs,keyboards,software,monitors,motherboards,RAM etc." The more i read about communism/socialism the more i understand that its just a goofy utopian idealology. No competition and no way to better yourself economically? Then what the hell is the incentive to work at all? What kind of software programmer is going to spend hours of his time crunching numbers so he can have the same shitty house and furniture as the janitor? Wake up, kiddies, capitalism makes your little spoiled online crybaby world possible. Tell the Cubans floating to florida about how great socialism is, im sure they'll listen.


http://www.invisionpower.com/ <------:P

[KC]

Communism has no monetary system.

[encephalon]

So essentially what you people are telling me is socialism is so convoluted that none of you can agree on a specific theory that could top capitalism.

You mean the way liberals and conservatives disagree about internal facets of a particular system named capitalism?



Thats sad, i honestly thought socialist theory had more to offer. The Funniest thing about this entire board is that the software its run on was created by IPS incorporated, aside from the fact that you are all typing away about the evils of capitalism on Dell,Gateway,Sony PCs.The Hypocracy would be overwhelming if it wasnt so hilarious. Im sure ol Che would be proud to know todays young &#39;revolutionaries&#39; are relying on capitalist companies to spread the word...good luck with the &#39;Revolution&#39;.

If yopu knew anything at all about marxism, you&#39;d know it isn&#39;t "hypocracy" (sic) at all. Not to mention that publius, tungsten and Co.--the ones bringing up all of these lovely nonsensical posts--are bonified capitalists. But thanks for showing your true colors before knowing much of anything.

Oh, how I love those that pose as curious bystanders most of all&#33;

[CaptainCapitalist]

Non-sensical posts? This thread was started with honesty, i wanted to know HOW you guys thought socialism would work better. All you guys seem to do is claim socialism would somehow fix the wrongs of capitalism, yet you all fail to elaborate as to HOW it would other than regurgitating the same drivel of the &#39;proleteriat&#39; overthrowing the &#39;bourgeosie&#39; over and over. It seems your idealology is based more on catch phrases and less on practical reality. I guess i need to state my question more specifically.....How would socialism keep the same standard of living we have now (internet connection,television,entertainment,plumbing,elect ricity,automobiles etc) without the monetary system of capitalism? It really seems like you would be sacrificing all of these conviences for the benefit of workers, and honestly, i have a hard time believing any of you have seen REAL work other than the service sector. You&#39;d have a hard time convincing a plumber or electrician in this country of converting to a economic system where they cant buy a six pack of budweiser after the days shift...

[encephalon]

Do you people honestly think we could be having this same debate online under a socialist society? "Proleteriat works for the Commune,makes no profit in the process, Commune somehow has the capital to fund production of PC&#39;s,fiberoptic cable,broadband connection,cable modems,wireless hubs,keyboards,software,monitors,motherboards,RAM etc."

The first question you should ask yourself is how any society produces anything; then ask yourself where capital comes from. Must be fairy dust.

If you&#39;re going to come into this right from the start with insults and without actually learning for your god damned self what socialism, anarchism and communism actually is, and yet you claim to dislike it so nonetheless, then you&#39;re little more than a child that wants to write video games but doesn&#39;t want to learn how to program. Don&#39;t expect us to fill in the gaps because you&#39;re lazy if you&#39;re going to sit there and hurl insults.



The more i read about communism/socialism the more i understand that its just a goofy utopian idealology. No competition and no way to better yourself economically?
Then what the hell is the incentive to work at all?


Linux. Wikipedia. the internet. All work on the basis of cooperation instead of competition. The pay is the product. *yawn*



What kind of software programmer is going to spend hours of his time crunching numbers so he can have the same shitty house and furniture as the janitor? Wake up, kiddies, capitalism makes your little spoiled online crybaby world possible.

For the answer to the programmer question, see above. The internet runs on free, non-competetive software. None of this would exist without programmers, mostly self-taught, that worked entirely free for the sake of the product itself and the benefits thereof by all society.

So how much are you getting paid to sit at home and ask us questions? Surely, it must be a lot to spend your time amongst us dirty commies. Or is it the product of your being here that you&#39;re interested in, even if only for personal use?



Tell the Cubans floating to florida about how great socialism is, im sure they&#39;ll listen.


Yes, I&#39;m sure the economic sanctions have nothing to do with it. And let us not mention the great majority that chooses to stay in Cuba. And let&#39;s not mention that cuba is state capitalism. Let&#39;s keep the argument nice and compact in your little world, just as you prefer.

[encephalon]

Non-sensical posts? This thread was started with honesty, i wanted to know HOW you guys thought socialism would work better. All you guys seem to do is claim socialism would somehow fix the wrongs of capitalism, yet you all fail to elaborate as to HOW it would. I need a theory with more substance and structure rather than everyone saying &#39;how do i know how everything will work after the revolution, im just there for the party dood&#39;

Well now, with a handle like CaptainCapitalist, I&#39;m sure all of us here will take you merely as curious without any preconceived agenda. Yes, with a name like that we&#39;ll all trust that you didn&#39;t come here for a fight and some trolling.

If you were truly interested in any theory, you&#39;d have started reading Marx by now, among others. Or are you expecting us to sum up millions of pages worth of theory written over the past two centuries in a couple posts?

If you&#39;re looking for actual answers, there are plenty of threads around here for you to read that deal with real socialist issues instead of what you want it to be. If you were truly interested, you&#39;d have read these among a great many other things and asked specific questions about it if you so desired. Instead, you opt to ask the grand question "what is ____" and, like a child that demands to know something but refuses to work towards learning about it, you expect us to provide an answer to you in a paragraph or two regardless of the pre-requisites of learning the material in the first place.

Instead of asking how socialism works, you should probably read into that which is socialism first, which is readily available to you already. Don&#39;t waste our time with childish pre-conceived answers to the questions you ask, especially if you&#39;re just going to start flaming.

[CaptainCapitalist]

1) You list Linux and Wikidpedia as if they had nearly the same amount of users as Windows, despite being freeware. Apparently people are willing to PAY for user friendly software. Competition obvioulsy won that fight, scratch that example. 2) No, the internet does NOT run on free non-competative software.....this board was made possible by http://www.invisionpower.com/. Try again. 3) A society produces QUALITY products such as the PC you are arguing with me on from trade...trade you have obviously engaged in despite your socialist/anarchist/marxist convictions....if you want to take that blatant hypocracy as an &#39;insult&#39; well all i can say is :blink:

[encephalon]

I guess i need to state my question more specifically.....How would socialism keep the same standard of living we have now (internet connection,television,entertainment,plumbing,elect ricity,automobiles etc) without the monetary system of capitalism? It really seems like you would be sacrificing all of these conviences for the benefit of workers...

The same way they are maintained now, without capitalists leeching profit off of the work of the laboring class. The same way we still had a cotton industry in the United States long after slavery ended. You seem to think capitalists are the producers, when they are plain and simply not. The capitalists take the surplus value produced by laborers and invest it in the manner that would maximize the profit of capitalists, not workers.



, and honestly, i have a hard time believing any of you have seen REAL work other than the service sector. You&#39;d have a hard time convincing a plumber or electrician in this country of converting to a economic system where they cant buy a six pack of budweiser after the days shift...


I&#39;ve been a welder.
I&#39;ve been a programmer.
I&#39;ve worked on assembly lines.
I&#39;ve worked in food service.
I&#39;ve worked in warehouses.
I&#39;ve operated heavy machinery.
I&#39;ve worked in other service industries.

All by spans of a year or more.

I&#39;ll be darned, us workin&#39; class folks can think too&#33;

[encephalon]

1) You list Linux and Wikidpedia as if they had nearly the same amount of users as Windows, despite being freeware. Apparently people are willing to PAY for user friendly software, would would have thunk. Competition obvsioulsy won that fight, scratch that example. 2) No, the internet does NOT run on free non-competative software.....this board was made possible by http://www.invisionpower.com/. Try again. 3) A society produces QUALITY products such as the PC you are arguing with me on from trade...trade you have obviously engaged in despite your socialist/anarchist/marxist convictions....if you want to take that blatant hypocracy as an &#39;insult&#39; well all i can say is


1. People have little choice in the matter. They buy a computer with windows on it, and Microsoft&#39;s business practices are quite efficient at keeping out competition. Perhaps you should read a little bit on the economics of a monopoly firm. Hell, even a basic bourgeoisie economics primer will be able to explain that one to you.

And for the record, linux and BSD systems make up the majority of server operating systems, and linux has a faster growth rate than any current operating system. User-friendliness is not an issue, either. I use this as I would any windows machine. When my ten year old little brother comes to my house, he has no problem with it either.

But boy, do I miss all those viruses and spam.

2. The internet runs on free software, and if you think otherwise you&#39;re exposing quite an ignorance about the basic structure of the internet and how it works. Apache is the number one server software in use by a wide margin, and is both entirely free and entirely GPL. TCP/IP is an open protocol. HTML is free. Javascript is free. Perl. PHP. SQL. If you really want a list of what makes the internet run, look it up yourself. But don&#39;t sit there and tell me the internet does not run on free software when I know that by and large it does. I have no wish to know the extent of your ignorance concerning technology.

3. Once again, if you think that a communist using a computer is hypocrisy, then you have absolutely no idea what communism is about. I&#39;d suggest buying a nice book about the matter if you can still fathom what such a thing is.

In any case, It&#39;s quite obvious you&#39;ve no desire to learn. I actually read this thread last night, but refrained from posting to it in order to see how honestly curious you were instead of just baiting. I guess I shouldn&#39;t be surprised at the answer.

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

Communists struggle for the advancement of the proletariat,
Class struggle and revolution is all most of you seem to know.

Im still waiting for you to state plausibly how we can detach ourselves from material reality.
We can&#39;t and I never said we could.
Atlas Swallowed

What has Capitalism brought to the world besides starvation, war, inequality and misery so the few can hoard wealth?
Erm...let&#39;s see...food, peace, justice and prosperity of which there are too many examples to list. What has yours bought?

[Dyst]

Erm...let&#39;s see...food, peace, justice and prosperity of which there are too many examples to list. What has yours bought?


None of those capitalism has brought. A few of those you had under feudalism (before capitalism.) And it is food, peace, justice and prosperity only for the wealthy. Thereby, not justice at all, nor prosperity, and nations under capitalism is those which has started the most wars throughout history.

You are proving that you don&#39;t know much about marxism by asking the extremely silly question of "what has yours brought" as it was some kind of alternative to capitalism. It is the "next step" in the evolution of human societies and systems of economics. There has never been a communist society in existance, yet.



Blindly groping your way into an undescribable future, what a wonderful way to end up in paradise. Not.

A better way to "end up in paradise" then from starvation, short sighted one.


1) You list Linux and Wikidpedia as if they had nearly the same amount of users as Windows, despite being freeware. Apparently people are willing to PAY for user friendly software. Competition obvioulsy won that fight, scratch that example. 2) No, the internet does NOT run on free non-competative software.....this board was made possible by http://www.invisionpower.com/. Try again. 3) A society produces QUALITY products such as the PC you are arguing with me on from trade...trade you have obviously engaged in despite your socialist/anarchist/marxist convictions....if you want to take that blatant hypocracy as an &#39;insult&#39; well all i can say is blink.gif

Congratulations. You made a good point about the society existing primarily for the wealthy, and that only rich people can do most things.

Anything further then that would be hallucinating.

Imagine for example how the internet would be like without corporations ruling (much of) it. It would be quite the same, except no annoying pop-ups, spam mail, ads, hackers/viruses, etc., etc. You would also see a lot more boards like this were people are allowed to discuss their hearts out.

[Connolly]

Class struggle and revolution is all most of you seem to know.

Explain.


We can&#39;t and I never said we could.

So greed is not an issue in a communist society then?

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

Explain.
You want a revolution, but you don&#39;t know what else to do. Point proven.

So greed is not an issue in a communist society then?
What has materialism got to do with greed not being an issue?
Keiza

None of those capitalism has brought. A few of those you had under feudalism (before capitalism.)
Very, very, very few.

And it is food, peace, justice and prosperity only for the wealthy.
Then everyone must be wealthy.

Thereby, not justice at all, nor prosperity, and nations under capitalism is those which has started the most wars throughout history.
Very funny. A country that invades another in order to sieze property cannot be acting in the name of capitalism, just as you cannot commit murder in the name of love.

You are proving that you don&#39;t know much about marxism by asking the extremely silly question of "what has yours brought" as it was some kind of alternative to capitalism.
I&#39;m proving that I&#39;m not prepared to buy the "communism hasn&#39;t been tried" excuse; removing individual rights can only have a negative effect in all areas. The USSR removed individual rights. What happened? Nazi Germany removed individual rights. What happened? North Korea removed individual rights. What happened? Communism wants to remove individual rights. What do you think is going to happen...?

It is the "next step" in the evolution of human societies and systems of economics.
A step forwards or backwards?

There has never been a communist society in existance, yet.
For the aformentioned reasons, I don&#39;t want there to be one.

A better way to "end up in paradise" then from starvation, short sighted one.
Speak for yourself.

[Dyst]

You say things, but don&#39;t back it up. Stop that.


Then everyone must be wealthy.
Why?

And no, most people are far from wealthy. And the TV does not give you a representional picture. This is a fact.


Very funny. A country that invades another in order to sieze property cannot be acting in the name of capitalism, just as you cannot commit murder in the name of love.

Huh? I hope you know that capitalism is imperialistic by nature. For the system to maximize its "utility" (and profit) it needs to expand globally. This it has done, and people not willing to commit to its order has not been taken gladly, as we have seen through history.



I&#39;m proving that I&#39;m not prepared to buy the "communism hasn&#39;t been tried" excuse; removing individual rights can only have a negative effect in all areas. The USSR removed individual rights. What happened? Nazi Germany removed individual rights. What happened? North Korea removed individual rights. What happened? Communism wants to remove individual rights. What do you think is going to happen...?

Individual rights exist only for the rich in a capitalist world. There is a quote by someone famous, that goes something like this: "Socialism without liberty is cruelty, liberty without socialism is injustice."



A step forwards or backwards?
Like feudalism was to despotism, and capitalism was to feudalism; A step forwards.

Seeing the world as it is today, what a strange idea to think that change could be something negative.

[cyu]

And it is food, peace, justice and prosperity only for the wealthy.
Then everyone must be wealthy.

If everyone were wealthy, people wouldn&#39;t be without health care in your favorite capitalist country would they? The fact of the matter is, having some people far wealthier than everyone else hurts the average person in a market economy. The reason is because by being able to spend more than other people, he causes resources like labor and raw materials to be diverted away from serving the average person, causing greater scarcity. No matter how good you say capitalism is, it can always get better for the general population if the wealthy didn&#39;t have so much spending power. Simple economics.

[Publius]

The only thing that would be stupid, is for me to go idealising about systems and managerial structures, falling directly into the hands of guys like you.

How convenient.



You may as well ask me the winning lotto numbers for next weeks draw.

I agree. Discussing communism is pointless ultimately pointless, almost as pointless as adhering to it.



What I could do however, is take the number patterns of previous draws and conclude the numbers most likley to emerge. It wouldnt guarantee a jackpot, but it would close the odds (however small a difference).

Actually, it wouldn&#39;t make any difference at all. Poor example.



Its not possible to derive whole new detailed systems that have never existed unless I could see the future, just like how I cant predict the exact lotto numbers which could be drawn. I could, however, based on the previous reliability records of the machine drawing the numbers, come to a pretty accurate conclusion as to the quantity of balls the machine will draw.

This is really a very bad analogy.



Its pretty similar. I can predict some things with great accuracy (though not ultimate), while other, more detailed things with little or no accuracy.

I could be very convincing even to you, that the number of balls the machine will draw, will occur almost every time (assuming it was properly designed), while less convincing if I were to tell you next weeks lotto numbers.

Again, this analogy is going no where.




Im no economist. However, if you are implying the present system will remain for the rest of human existence, you are "divorced" from historical example and conclusions.

I&#39;m not implying anything other than that Marxian communism is false.

I&#39;m not saying it&#39;ll be capitalism forever, I truly don&#39;t know.

But I don&#39;t pretend to know, that&#39;s the key.



Your theory is devoid of historical example.

Doesn&#39;t need to have one. It&#39;ll be &#39;unprecedented&#39;.

I could make up some bullshit sophistry a la dialectics, if you&#39;d like, in order to back up my &#39;theory&#39;.



I cannot provide any proof that it WILL happen, nothing can be absolutely certain, just as no mechanical machine can be 100 percent efficient or reliable. We CAN come to accurate conclusions as to what will be the machines life span based on historical record - just as we CAN come to an accurate conclusion, based on historical record, that socialism is not only possible, but pretty much inevitable.


Even assuming those things are true (They may be), it STILL provides no evidence that a Marxian proleterian revolution (Which is just as unprecedented as my earlier example) will happen.

Socialism is POSSIBLE, and it may very well be inevietable, but that still doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re right.

We&#39;re discussing real revolutions and real history, the real world, not theories and speculation about what could possibly happen somewhere down the line.




What we say is not ontological at all, but based on accurate prediction.

I was kidding.

&#39;Historical ontologicalism&#39; was a play on &#39;historical materialism&#39;, meant to be humorous.

The fact that you didn&#39;t note the humor is evidence that you really aren&#39;t able to see through the bullshit.




Some things are not logically possible to predict or formulate - so i wont.

It didn&#39;t stop Marx.




Elaborate.

The exploitation theory is dependent entirely on the LTV.




Its not when guys like you bring up completely irrational arguments like "everyone would just be greedy, therefore, the system would just collapse"

Eh?



By the way, dosnt that require some kind of material action to cease thought and end your existence? unless you believe in the "soul" and "afterlife" for which thought continues beyond death. :rolleyes:


Eh?

[Publius]

Obviously he refferred to significant decisions.

Significant is, in this sense, undefinable.

What&#39;s a significant economic decision and what isn&#39;t; what&#39;s the distinction?




It is impossible to make a decision about every activity.

No it isn&#39;t.

Not of you had some sort of &#39;price system&#39; that figured up the value of a person&#39;s labor.

Hmm..



Anarcho syndicalism is not just theory in paper, it has been already experimented in such events like the Spanish Civil War.


And?




I dare to say that anarchosynidcalism is the "anarcho" that has had more tangible results in history. This is because members of revolutionary unions aren&#39;t just "foot-soldiers", they participate in decision-making and practice direct action. A revolutionary union doesn&#39;t has a "president" or a "leader", instead it is managed in a decentralized fashion by democratic assemblies.


Running a single factory democratically may not be hard at all, espescially if all the workers think alike.

Running an entire economy democratically, however, is another story.



In America the IWW (Industrial workers of the world) could mobilize 300 000 workers at its peak. The IWW has been, and still is the most important anarchosyndicalist union in America.

In Spain, it was the CNT who mobilized millions of workers. In the spanish civil war workers took over factories and practiced democracy in the workplace. In most of this factories production actually rised.

Any actual data on this?

What economic data exists for the Spanish Civil War?




Its not that simple.

A worker who is reduced to a mere receptor of orders would be more susceptible to "vote" "egoistically".

However, what if all of them do the decisions collectively?

You would be surprised. ;)

What if a particular worker were stupid, or had an ego problem, or was disagreeable?

Do you think they could be easily placated?

I for one wouldn&#39;t be happy if my ideas were not used, because I&#39;m a very intelligent person and a rather vainglorious person.

I really dislike group projects for this reason; I do things better on my own, because I don&#39;t have to deal with people, I don&#39;t like to deal with people, as a rule.

I can do most things better on my own, so what consort with my inferiors? It&#39;s a waste of my time and a waste of their time.

I would not be happy in a position of equality with morons.



The most important thing in collective decision making is diversity.

No, the most important thing in collective decision making is uniformity: Agreeing with another person&#39;s idea.

&#39;Diversity&#39; is un-democratic.



If a person doesn&#39;t has an individual opinion, all that democratic shit becomes nullfied

An individual opinion is worthless when group opinion is all that matters.

[Publius]

And why would this be a problem?

Because people don&#39;t like being payed the same to different amounts and types of work.

I don&#39;t.



If the employees decide everyone in the company should be paid equally, then more power to them.

Easy to say until people like me, superior talents, stop excercising our superior talent because we receive no incentive to innovate.

If the job required critical thinking, I could probably do the work of 3 or 4 people; why then should I be payed equally with one person?



Like I&#39;ve said before, the larger the gap between rich and poor, the more skewed the economy is to producing only for the rich, resulting in more scarcity for everyone else.

I don&#39;t think you understand basic economic principals at all...

[Dyst]

I&#39;m a very intelligent person and a rather vainglorious person.

People who claim they are intelligent. Just can&#39;t get enough of those&#33; :lol: :rolleyes:


If the job required critical thinking, I could probably do the work of 3 or 4 people; why then should I be payed equally with one person?

Well, I hope your job doesn&#39;t require critical thinking.

If you have worked just as hard as them, why should you not be payed equally? Anything else would be against common sense and decency.

[Publius]

People who claim they are intelligent. Just can&#39;t get enough of those&#33; :lol: :rolleyes:

I really don&#39;t need to claim it as my writing clearly evinces superior intelligence.

Unless of course, you didn&#39;t have the intelligence to note it...



Well, I hope your job doesn&#39;t require critical thinking.



If you have worked just as hard as them, why should you not be payed equally?

Because I don&#39;t want to.

What else matters?

Instead of working as hard as I could, concentrating, using my full capabalities, etc., I could just dick off and do in 5 minutes what it takes others hours to do.

I&#39;ll just spend the rest of the time reading.

What incentive do I have use my spectacular cognitive abilities?



Anything else would be against common sense and decency.

Common sense dictates that if I do more, I should be payed more.

Decency dictates that I be payed for what I do.

I don&#39;t care, in the least, about &#39;equality&#39; or &#39;fairness&#39; or any of that. I&#39;m not equal to people less intelligent than me and I resent being treated as such.

I&#39;m demonstrably better at critical thinking, writing, and numerous other tasks.

For example, I&#39;m a very proficient computer user. In any job requiring computer use, I would be a much better employee than the average person. My pay should reflect that.

[Connolly]

Actually, it wouldn&#39;t make any difference at all. Poor example.

Yes, exactly - it wouldnt make any difference if I were to idealise about something unpredictable. (great example methinks).


This is really a very bad analogy

Not at all. Infact it explains perfectly well, how some things are more capable of accurate prediction than others, and how things are not run through "unprecedented" occurances. (This analogy suits my purpose just fine).


Doesn&#39;t need to have one. It&#39;ll be &#39;unprecedented&#39;.

You see - just because we cannot predict for certain that something WILL happen, dosnt mean we should all face the "unprecedented" unknown of uncertainty.

Things are, on a daily basis, produced and acted upon on the basis of prediction using historical results and lessons.

Where would society be today without predictions using historical examples?


Even assuming those things are true (They may be), it STILL provides no evidence that a Marxian proleterian revolution (Which is just as unprecedented as my earlier example) will happen.

As I said - I cannot produce any evidence that it WILL happen - just as Toyota cannot produce any evidence that their cars will not break down in the first year of operation, they can give you the comforting factor that its unlikely - based on historical evidence - tests, trial and error of designs etc.

So if you want to go around in your car (assuming you have one), fearing the "unprecedented" of the brakes failing - without taking into account the actual number of historical data which claims this is unlikely - Go ahead - fear the fucking "unprecedented" :lol:


Socialism is POSSIBLE, and it may very well be inevietable, but that still doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re right.

We&#39;re discussing real revolutions and real history, the real world, not theories and speculation about what could possibly happen somewhere down the line.

I never said I was right or completely sure - I cannot. (although It seems you would really like me to predict the unpredictable).

We, as communists, are fighting for what is most likely. We could be wrong - but hey - the "unprecedented" might happen - theres no point not trying. :P


The exploitation theory is dependent entirely on the LTV.

Please.........continue...........(waiting for the crushing blow that will smash all viability from communism :lol: )

[Connolly]

You want a revolution, but you don&#39;t know what else to do. Point proven.

We can, based on our historical understanding, and of pure compassion for those exploited - fight for the rights and advancements of the working class.

Your "point" proves nothing.


What has materialism got to do with greed not being an issue?

It seems you have a short memory span.

In the capitalism thread - you attempted to claim that our actions and thoughts are not defined by our material conditions. (it appears you have withdrawn that).

So, if our actions and thoughts are defined by our material conditions, and our material conditions are defined by the mode of production (in terms of society), then - if being greedy was not a function of the mode of production - we wouldnt be.

[Dyst]

I really don&#39;t need to claim it as my writing clearly evinces superior intelligence.

Unless of course, you didn&#39;t have the intelligence to note it...

Well your writing "clearly evinces" you being arrogant. You seem like the kind of guy who knows his schoolbooks too well, probably got good grades in school, but goes in denial when he hears anything that could disrupt his dogma.

And don&#39;t ever say you are so fucking smart, it&#39;s not fitting for anybody. You are no more than human, and whatever you may do, think, write or say, the universe will always be a whole lot of bigger then you, kid. Believe it or not.


Instead of working as hard as I could, concentrating, using my full capabalities, etc., I could just dick off and do in 5 minutes what it takes others hours to do.

No, you couldn&#39;t, if it was a normal job. Not unless the "others" had Downs syndrome or some other medical condition.


Common sense dictates that if I do more, I should be payed more.

Thanks. That was my point.


Decency dictates that I be payed for what I do.

Yes. You should be paid for what you actually do, not based on how much your boss profits from what you do.

Good to see we agree with each other.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:48 PM




Significant is, in this sense, undefinable.

What&#39;s a significant economic decision and what isn&#39;t; what&#39;s the distinction?

You are right in one thing, the question what is "a significant decision" can be entirely subjective.

BUT

I remember some guy coming here saying that what is a "mean of production" to a marxist, because he pointed out that shovels and hammers are means of production.

There was also another guy pointing out that to the marxist, people can&#39;t have possesions because they want to abolish private property.

However, when we refer to the "means of production", or "private property", we refer to what we deem significant

An apartment is not significant to us, but big buildings and hundred of acres are.

A hammer is not significant, but a factory is.

And so on.

Such entirely subjective matters will be dealt with by the community, and they will establish the "limits".



No it isn&#39;t.

Not of you had some sort of &#39;price system&#39; that figured up the value of a person&#39;s labor.

Hmm..

:lol:

You would get along with the socialists here that advocate labor time vouchers.



And?

That the "flaws" you are pointing out have already been dismissed by the history of anarchosyndicalism.


Running a single factory democratically may not be hard at all, espescially if all the workers think alike.

There is your answer.

There are certain interests that are almost universal.

People are not as alienated from each other as you try to point out.


Running an entire economy democratically, however, is another story.

Perhaps.

I cannot find "big" examples of anarchosyndicalism in action because it has always been supressed by the statist and bourgeois forces.

However, Here is a good point made by Bakunin:


Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. "

I don&#39;t see how can&#39;t economists participate in decision making. People aren&#39;t that stupid, they would trust people that have "more knowledge" concerning some "matters".

However, the economist won&#39;t have the means to surpress other people, and make his will an intransgressible authority.


it is crucial, that they don&#39;t have absolute faith on any determined person&#33;



Any actual data on this?

What economic data exists for the Spanish Civil War?

I was googiling and apparently, there isn&#39;t much "statistical data"

However, I found something very interesting from a "bourgeois" source:

http://www.ku.edu/~iberia/ssphs/vol1no2.html

Here is a bit about the increase of factory production:

We possess fairly detailed observations of a few industrial collectives by two well informed journalists. Dr. Franz Borkenau, author of The Spanish Cockpit, was the observant, widely traveled, and university educated son of an Austrian judge. He held a degree in sociology, had been an employee of the Comintern in the early 1920&#39;s, was a keen student of Marxism, and of the many European socialist and communist parties. H. E. Kaminski, author of Ceux de Barcelone, was a biographer of Bakunin and a journalist who had covered the Moroccan War in the 1920&#39;s.(6) In 1928 he had visited many of the cities and farm districts in which the revolution of 1936 was occurring. Both men testify to the high morale and the operating efficiency of the collectivized factories which they saw in August and September 1936. Both men noted that many members of the factory committees were men whose technical capacity and character gave them a high standing with their fellow workers. Machinery was well taken care of, long hours and high production norms were cheerfully accepted, personal dignity and working conditions were considered more important than possible salary gains. But these observations concern only a few factories, and were made during the ardent, optimistic first weeks of the revolutionary regime. They provide absolutely no firm basis for judging how collectivized industry might have operated over long periods, after the glow of novelty would have worn off, and when new plans and tooling would be necessary.

Now, a bit about agricultural collectives:


The evidence of the Peirats, Souchy, and Prats books, all highly sympathetic to the anarchists, and of the more skeptical Borkenau and Kaminski books, indicates that more land was being cultivated, more intensively, in the collectives than under previous conditions; that such things as food, seed, tools, medical care, and elementary schooling were better distributed than in the past; and that the overall prosperity and efficiency of the collectivized villages varied greatly, following closely the relative prosperity of the specific areas in pre-collective times. If the available statistics for 1937 compared with 1936 can be trusted, it would seem that there were substantial increases of both production and productivity in the grain-raising collectives. There is no reliable way to estimate the increase percentage-wise, nor to know how much of the increase to attribute to collectivist methods, and how much to the spur of wartime needs. Allowance must also be made for the effects of an at least 20% inflation between the two harvests, and for the fact that the 1936 harvest was particularly upset by the beginning of the revolution itself.

There doesn&#39;t seems to be abundantresources about this at all. :(

However, the most critical accounts of Spanish Anarchism seem to come from Leninists and Anarchists themselves.

Some Anarchists think that spanish anarchism had some authoritarian tendences, including me. ;)



What if a particular worker were stupid, or had an ego problem, or was disagreeable?

Do you think they could be easily placated?

I for one wouldn&#39;t be happy if my ideas were not used, because I&#39;m a very intelligent person and a rather vainglorious person.

I really dislike group projects for this reason; I do things better on my own, because I don&#39;t have to deal with people, I don&#39;t like to deal with people, as a rule.

I can do most things better on my own, so what consort with my inferiors? It&#39;s a waste of my time and a waste of their time.

I would not be happy in a position of equality with morons.
:lol:

People who don&#39;t want to cooperate would be ostracized, as in any community.

If anything, I consider the anarchist synthesis of collectivism and individualism more able to promote "individualism" for most people. Instead of having to agree with a bunch of decadent specialists, you have the ability to be heard equally as all the others.

Everything from ideas to music would be more diverse, because people wouldn&#39;t have to worry about state repression or profit.

Imagine the possibilities&#33;


No, the most important thing in collective decision making is uniformity: Agreeing with another person&#39;s idea.

&#39;Diversity&#39; is un-democratic.

So you think a centralized authority is less diverse than "democracy"?

How can a few arbitrary ideas that need to be shoved through the throats of millions of people be more diverse than the ideas presented in democratic assemblies?


An individual opinion is worthless when group opinion is all that matters.

Group opinions are synthesized from individual opinions. :)

The individual is the building block of the community.

[cyu]

Obviously he refferred to significant decisions.
Significant is, in this sense, undefinable.

It is a point of contention - to be sure it is only a rule of thumb, but again, each person&#39;s vote is weighted by how much he is affected by it. The person doing the work is obviously affected much more than someone hundreds of miles away. Anarchism is just democracy decentralized. How would you propose decisions be made? That those hardly affected by the decision be making it?


Running a single factory democratically may not be hard at all, espescially if all the workers think alike.

Running an entire economy democratically, however, is another story.


Each factory in that economy would be run independently, but still democratically by their employees. It is no different than having one factory run democratically. It&#39;s not like an employee in China would be voting on raw material purchases in France (unless the two factories freely chose to combine their resources).


I really dislike group projects for this reason; I do things better on my own, because I don&#39;t have to deal with people, I don&#39;t like to deal with people, as a rule.

Guess you&#39;d never work with a corporation then. No anarcho-syndicalist will stop you if you want to form a company of one, but you probably won&#39;t get very much accomplished without other people cooperating with you.


Easy to say until people like me, superior talents, stop excercising our superior talent because we receive no incentive to innovate.

People will work for more things than material gain. For example, people will work for awards and titles. Money often is just used to buy something to show off after all. In any case, you have to balance the harm created by less material rewards for hard work versus the harm when some individuals are allowed to have millions of times the spending power as the average person. It&#39;s not like you&#39;ll say to a person, "in return for your hard work inventing such-and-such, I&#39;ll now allow you to kill any 5 of my family members." You have to balance the reward with how much harm it will do to society.

In any case, there&#39;s a negotiation process going on. If an employee refuses to cooperate, then he is free to leave the company. If the other employees agree he&#39;s actually worth keeping, then sure, they can offer him more if that&#39;s what they want to do. The most important thing is that this process is done democratically. The uncooperative employee has to be valuable to as many people in the company as possible. If he were just a suck-up to someone high up in the chain of command in an authoritarian company, that would create no value.

[Publius]

Yes, exactly - it wouldnt make any difference if I were to idealise about something unpredictable. (great example methinks).

It is if you&#39;re willing to equate communism with &#39;a lottery&#39;, which was my point from the beggining.

Communism is a lottery and the odds are not good; that&#39;s my point.




Not at all. Infact it explains perfectly well, how some things are more capable of accurate prediction than others, and how things are not run through "unprecedented" occurances. (This analogy suits my purpose just fine).


Predicting a proletarian revolution is not something one can do accurate, I mean, look at Marx himself; he was a off by a little bit.


You see - just because we cannot predict for certain that something WILL happen, dosnt mean we should all face the "unprecedented" unknown of uncertainty.

Things are, on a daily basis, produced and acted upon on the basis of prediction using historical results and lessons.

Where would society be today without predictions using historical examples?

The problem isn&#39;t your methodology, it&#39;s your application of it.


As I said - I cannot produce any evidence that it WILL happen - just as Toyota cannot produce any evidence that their cars will not break down in the first year of operation, they can give you the comforting factor that its unlikely - based on historical evidence - tests, trial and error of designs etc.

Yes, but this isn&#39;t really applicable to your point about communism, because a worldwide class revolution has never happend and there is no evidence that it ever will.



I never said I was right or completely sure - I cannot. (although It seems you would really like me to predict the unpredictable).

We, as communists, are fighting for what is most likely. We could be wrong - but hey - the "unprecedented" might happen - theres no point not trying. :P

Back to the fatalism.



Please.........continue...........(waiting for the crushing blow that will smash all viability from communism :lol: )

The LTV is wrong.

That&#39;s it.

[Publius]

Well your writing "clearly evinces" you being arrogant. You seem like the kind of guy who knows his schoolbooks too well, probably got good grades in school, but goes in denial when he hears anything that could disrupt his dogma.


I don&#39;t really get good grades or attend to my schoolbooks.

I&#39;m more the kid who never studies and doesn&#39;t care about his grades but still gets decent grades.

I think it&#39;s funny that you portray me as dogmatic; it&#39;s almost like it&#39;s some sort of dogma among communists to label detractors in this manner, as if your thoughts or ideas were inherently better. One might even say it was a little, what&#39;s that word you called me, arrogant. Arrogant.

I&#39;m arrogant to presume my own intelligence and you&#39;re not arrogant to presume my dogmatism?

Nice try.



And don&#39;t ever say you are so fucking smart, it&#39;s not fitting for anybody.

I don&#39;t care about it &#39;fitting&#39;.

That&#39;s not one of my concerns, and it shouldn&#39;t be one of my concerns.



You are no more than human, and whatever you may do, think, write or say, the universe will always be a whole lot of bigger then you, kid. Believe it or not.

That&#39;s the kind of shit Christians say when they get their ass handed to them in an argument. I expected better of a supposed arch-rationalist.

Maybe I shouldn&#39;t in the future.




No, you couldn&#39;t, if it was a normal job. Not unless the "others" had Downs syndrome or some other medical condition.

You think you can tell if someone&#39;s slacking off or is just incompetent? What are you going to do about it, vote?

:lol:

"Dear Publius, we vote that you&#39;re an asshole"

Anything but that&#33;



Yes. You should be paid for what you actually do, not based on how much your boss profits from what you do.

Of course you should.

And it&#39;s a very good thing you are, or we&#39;d have problems.

[Publius]

I remember some guy coming here saying that what is a "mean of production" to a marxist, because he pointed out that shovels and hammers are means of production.

There was also another guy pointing out that to the marxist, people can&#39;t have possesions because they want to abolish private property.

However, when we refer to the "means of production", or "private property", we refer to what we deem significant

An apartment is not significant to us, but big buildings and hundred of acres are.

A hammer is not significant, but a factory is.

And so on.

Such entirely subjective matters will be dealt with by the community, and they will establish the "limits".

And if they choose wrongly? If their choice is demonstrably bad in other ways? If their choice is unworkable, or dictatory?

Tell me how you, personally, would go about deciding what&#39;s &#39;significant&#39;.

What you would you vote on?



You would get along with the socialists here that advocate labor time vouchers.

There&#39;s more to it than time spent laboring.

Time spent training, learning, materials used, the difficulty of the job, the demand, the supply, comparative advantage and many other thigns play a role.

The fact that some socialists think &#39;time vouchers&#39; are a workable equitable form of currency says more about their delusion that I ever could.

It&#39;s a shame that you don&#39;t see these other factors; they are important.



That the "flaws" you are pointing out have already been dismissed by the history of anarchosyndicalism.

It&#39;s &#39;history&#39; totalling about 5 years of sporadic usage in isolated places, for short periods of time.

Hell, Nazism &#39;worked&#39; for a few years. Soviet style communism &#39;worked&#39; for a while.



There is your answer.

There are certain interests that are almost universal.

People are not as alienated from each other as you try to point out.

Of course they are.

Alienation is the sole human experience, to wax existential.




Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. "

Well, what he says is obvious.

But is that indicitive of what really would happen?

&#39;Bootmakers&#39; being the authority on making boots is obvious, but it&#39;s really not relevent.

What incentive would he have to make boots? To make good boots? Would he have the proper equipment? Different questions.

How can you reach a balance between individual aptitude and group awareness?

How could your system be better than the current one in this area?



I don&#39;t see how can&#39;t economists participate in decision making. People aren&#39;t that stupid, they would trust people that have "more knowledge" concerning some "matters".


I&#39;m pointing out some of the economic challenges now.




However, the economist won&#39;t have the means to surpress other people, and make his will an intransgressible authority.


it is crucial, that they don&#39;t have absolute faith on any determined person&#33;

This assumes that people really are capable of understanding what they are voting for.

How do you know if an economist is good or not?

As an aside, how much time would be spent voting? It seems astronomical to me.

I can&#39;t work out, in my head, how a bunch of people voting can ever transfer the necessary information and come to a concenus.


Here is a bit about the increase of factory production:

We possess fairly detailed observations of a few industrial collectives by two well informed journalists. Dr. Franz Borkenau, author of The Spanish Cockpit, was the observant, widely traveled, and university educated son of an Austrian judge. He held a degree in sociology, had been an employee of the Comintern in the early 1920&#39;s, was a keen student of Marxism, and of the many European socialist and communist parties. H. E. Kaminski, author of Ceux de Barcelone, was a biographer of Bakunin and a journalist who had covered the Moroccan War in the 1920&#39;s.(6) In 1928 he had visited many of the cities and farm districts in which the revolution of 1936 was occurring. Both men testify to the high morale and the operating efficiency of the collectivized factories which they saw in August and September 1936. Both men noted that many members of the factory committees were men whose technical capacity and character gave them a high standing with their fellow workers. Machinery was well taken care of, long hours and high production norms were cheerfully accepted, personal dignity and working conditions were considered more important than possible salary gains. But these observations concern only a few factories, and were made during the ardent, optimistic first weeks of the revolutionary regime. They provide absolutely no firm basis for judging how collectivized industry might have operated over long periods, after the glow of novelty would have worn off, and when new plans and tooling would be necessary.

I can&#39;t speak for the validity of the statements, but remember what Western jouranalists thought of the Soviet Union on first inspection.

Again, there isn&#39;t much definitive here.




The evidence of the Peirats, Souchy, and Prats books, all highly sympathetic to the anarchists, and of the more skeptical Borkenau and Kaminski books, indicates that more land was being cultivated, more intensively, in the collectives than under previous conditions; that such things as food, seed, tools, medical care, and elementary schooling were better distributed than in the past; and that the overall prosperity and efficiency of the collectivized villages varied greatly, following closely the relative prosperity of the specific areas in pre-collective times. If the available statistics for 1937 compared with 1936 can be trusted, it would seem that there were substantial increases of both production and productivity in the grain-raising collectives. There is no reliable way to estimate the increase percentage-wise, nor to know how much of the increase to attribute to collectivist methods, and how much to the spur of wartime needs. Allowance must also be made for the effects of an at least 20% inflation between the two harvests, and for the fact that the 1936 harvest was particularly upset by the beginning of the revolution itself.


Again, it&#39;s hard to make anything definitive.


There doesn&#39;t seems to be abundantresources about this at all. :(

That&#39;s what I&#39;ve found.

I hear of these great successes, but I see little actual data.




People who don&#39;t want to cooperate would be ostracized, as in any community.

That&#39;s my point.

I want to be ostracized; I&#39;m a misanthropist.

I don&#39;t like people, I think they&#39;re stupid.




If anything, I consider the anarchist synthesis of collectivism and individualism more able to promote "individualism" for most people. Instead of having to agree with a bunch of decadent specialists, you have the ability to be heard equally as all the others.


I don&#39;t want &#39;equality&#39;, I wan&#39;t &#39;more&#39;.

Equality, for me, is a step down.



Everything from ideas to music would be more diverse, because people wouldn&#39;t have to worry about state repression or profit.

I fail to see how creativity is depressed now.

Sure, the radio is bad, but there is literally no end to the creativity elsewhere.




Imagine the possibilities&#33;

I seriously doubt Brian Eno would have been better if he had grown up in a socialist society.




So you think a centralized authority is less diverse than "democracy"?

It depends.

Also, why is diversity necessarily good?




How can a few arbitrary ideas that need to be shoved through the throats of millions of people be more diverse than the ideas presented in democratic assemblies?


Fair point.

But how many of those &#39;democratic ideas&#39; will suck? Most of them.




Group opinions are synthesized from individual opinions. :)

The individual is the building block of the community.

The invidual is destroyed by democracy, as it can be taken away via vote.

[Publius]

It is a point of contention - to be sure it is only a rule of thumb, but again, each person&#39;s vote is weighted by how much he is affected by it.

Which is just as meaningless and subjective.



The person doing the work is obviously affected much more than someone hundreds of miles away.

That&#39;s not obvious at all.

Say a worker is wasteful with resources; that wastefulness increases cost EVERYWHERE.

THat&#39;s how an economy works.



Anarchism is just democracy decentralized. How would you propose decisions be made?

Good question.

Invidually, whenever possible.



That those hardly affected by the decision be making it?

Not at all.



Each factory in that economy would be run independently, but still democratically by their employees.

How would a factory respond to market signals, to say, increase production or decrease production?

Would people really vote to hire new people, and thus reduce their own take? WOuld they vote to work longer hours? WOuld they vote to lay off their friends?

What things would be voted on and what things wouldn&#39;t be voted on? Where&#39;s the distinction?



It is no different than having one factory run democratically. It&#39;s not like an employee in China would be voting on raw material purchases in France (unless the two factories freely chose to combine their resources).

But they are effected by that decision.

If factories in France order far more materials than they really need, it would effect China.



Guess you&#39;d never work with a corporation then.

I don&#39;t plan on it.



No anarcho-syndicalist will stop you if you want to form a company of one, but you probably won&#39;t get very much accomplished without other people cooperating with you.


Depends on what I&#39;m doing.

I plan on being an economist, or a social scientist of some kind.




People will work for more things than material gain. For example, people will work for awards and titles.

Ah yes, promote vainglory by handing people medals and awards but expect them to behave alruistically.

Interesting contradiction.



Money often is just used to buy something to show off after all. In any case, you have to balance the harm created by less material rewards for hard work versus the harm when some individuals are allowed to have millions of times the spending power as the average person. It&#39;s not like you&#39;ll say to a person, "in return for your hard work inventing such-and-such, I&#39;ll now allow you to kill any 5 of my family members." You have to balance the reward with how much harm it will do to society.


No, I don&#39;t, society does it for me.

How thoughtful of them.



In any case, there&#39;s a negotiation process going on. If an employee refuses to cooperate, then he is free to leave the company. If the other employees agree he&#39;s actually worth keeping, then sure, they can offer him more if that&#39;s what they want to do. The most important thing is that this process is done democratically. The uncooperative employee has to be valuable to as many people in the company as possible. If he were just a suck-up to someone high up in the chain of command in an authoritarian company, that would create no value.

So if people vote democratically to allow a sychophant to stay aboard, it&#39;s ok, but if a capitalist &#39;boss&#39; keeps the same type of sycophant, there&#39;s a problem?

[cyu]

Anarchism is just democracy decentralized. How would you propose decisions be made?
Good question.

Invidually, whenever possible.


That&#39;s basically the same thing anarchists would say. So when is it not possible? What if a decision affects a large group of people equally? How should it get resolved? I don&#39;t see how your views differ on this point with anarchists.


How would a factory respond to market signals, to say, increase production or decrease production?

Would people really vote to hire new people, and thus reduce their own take? WOuld they vote to work longer hours? WOuld they vote to lay off their friends?

Why would hiring more people reduce their own take? The reason people form companies in the first place would be because by cooperating, they could each earn more than they would individually. If hiring more people does harm to the company, then it would be logical not to do it. If a business sector shows a lot of demand for its products, yet no existing companies are willing to expand, then new companies can be started.

They&#39;ll vote for longer hours if they want to earn more money and feel it&#39;s worth it. I have no problem with the market imposing its discipline as long as the companies involved are democratic.

Do you think lay offs should be decided by one CEO (who obviously isn&#39;t going to lay himself off) and not the employees in general? Is this the type of individual decision making you&#39;re talking about? If the company isn&#39;t making much money, then there would be less of it for the employees to share. They could either choose individually to stick it out or leave the company for another one.


What things would be voted on and what things wouldn&#39;t be voted on? Where&#39;s the distinction?


I could ask you the same question of political democracy. What things are voted on in politics and what isn&#39;t? The democratic process itself decides that.



People will work for more things than material gain. For example, people will work for awards and titles.
Ah yes, promote vainglory by handing people medals and awards but expect them to behave alruistically.

Whatever works. If there is a desirable behavior, you find ways to promote it while at the same time causing as little harm as possible. Pride is entirely determined by culture. If you have a culture of hard-work, then you could have more for everyone. If you have a culture of non-materialism, then you wouldn&#39;t have to worry about consumer goods so much and concentrate on other things. It all depends on what you want as a society or sub-culture within that society.


So if people vote democratically to allow a sychophant to stay aboard, it&#39;s ok, but if a capitalist &#39;boss&#39; keeps the same type of sycophant, there&#39;s a problem?

Sure, if the guy promotes morale, then he&#39;d be valuable. This goes to a deeper question: why should the capitalist boss get to make the decision? Society is supposed to be structured to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. When only one person gets to make that decision, it&#39;s much more likely to be the greatest good for only that one person.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:05 PM
Atlas Swallowed

What has Capitalism brought to the world besides starvation, war, inequality and misery so the few can hoard wealth?
Erm...let&#39;s see...food, peace, justice and prosperity of which there are too many examples to list. What has yours bought?
You must have missed the world part. Thier is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, yet millions starve to death. Pretty effective :rolleyes:

Peace and justice, please :blink: I am surprised you did not say racial equality :lol:

Mine has not been tried yet of course silly.

[Connolly]

It is if you&#39;re willing to equate communism with &#39;a lottery&#39;, which was my point from the beggining.

If you have followed, I was &#39;equating&#39; a lottery with the unpredictable aspects of a communist society. Not communism itself, for which I used the analogy of the "drawing machine" - more accurate predictability.


Communism is a lottery and the odds are not good; that&#39;s my point.

History suggests otherwise.

(and thats a crap analogy if ever iv seen one)


Predicting a proletarian revolution is not something one can do accurate, I mean, look at Marx himself; he was a off by a little bit.

Please - show me were I predicted the nature of revolution, when revolution will occur and what exactly we must do to bring about socialist revolution - of late.


Yes, but this isn&#39;t really applicable to your point about communism, because a worldwide class revolution has never happend and there is no evidence that it ever will.

You and "Mr. high melting point" seem to like putting words in my mouth.

Show me were I said there will be a "worldwide class revolution", which seems very unlikely and not probable, - of late.

There is undoubtable historical evidence of class revolution.


Back to the fatalism.

Not at all fatalistic.

(thats the second time youv said that, it appears you do not understand the definition of &#39;fatalism&#39;)


The LTV is wrong.

That&#39;s it.

How crushing :lol:

[Tungsten]

Keiza

And no, most people are far from wealthy. And the TV does not give you a representional picture. This is a fact.
You claimed that "capitalism causes stavation" etc.- where&#39;s your evidence?
Yeah, right. Capitalism causes famine. Just look at all the starving people in the US. (There was an obesity epedemic last time I checked.)

Huh? I hope you know that capitalism is imperialistic by nature.
That&#39;s as good as saying "peaceful people are warlike in nature". You can&#39;t simulatneously advocate the protection of property rights and then rob your neigbour.

For the system to maximize its "utility" (and profit) it needs to expand globally.
Which can be done without "imperialism".

Individual rights exist only for the rich in a capitalist world.
Do try to think instead of spewing out slogans. We all have freedom of speech, regardless of the amount of money we have in our pockets. And we all have our property protected, regardless of how much we own.
cyu

If everyone were wealthy, people wouldn&#39;t be without health care in your favorite capitalist country would they?
Why wouldn&#39;t they be? I can&#39;t guarantee that everyone is going to be 100% rational and not waste the money they should have spent on health insurance on drugs and booze instead, can I?

The fact of the matter is, having some people far wealthier than everyone else hurts the average person in a market economy. The reason is because by being able to spend more than other people, he causes resources like labor and raw materials to be diverted away from serving the average person, causing greater scarcity. No matter how good you say capitalism is, it can always get better for the general population if the wealthy didn&#39;t have so much spending power. Simple economics.
This is so ridiculous it doesn&#39;t even warrant a comment.

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

We can, based on our historical understanding, and of pure compassion for those exploited - fight for the rights and advancements of the working class.
Okay, so you&#39;re having a revolution out of "compassion" in order to "advance the working class", which you are justified in doing because of "historical materialism". Okay, the revolution&#39;s over. You&#39;ve won. Now what do we do?

In the capitalism thread - you attempted to claim that our actions and thoughts are not defined by our material conditions. (it appears you have withdrawn that).
I have not withdrawn it. You were trying to put forth a theory of hard-nosed determinism that does not account for free will. I said that compatibilism - limited determinism that accounts for free will - is far more realistic and doesn&#39;t fall into the contradictions that hard determinism does.

So, if our actions and thoughts are defined by our material conditions,
They&#39;re not, otherwise Marx would have been a capitalist- his opinions and ideology defined by his material conditions.

[Tungsten]

Atlas Swallowed

You must have missed the world part.
It&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fault that people in non-capitalist countries are starving?

Thier is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, yet millions starve to death. Pretty effective :rolleyes:
It&#39;s effective for us and it&#39;ll be effective for them too when they eventually get started.

Peace and justice, please I am surprised you did not say racial equality
I&#39;ve seen what many of you define as peace and justice, so that comment doesn&#39;t really faze me.

Mine has not been tried yet of course silly.
Neither has mine. Tee hee hee.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:56 PM
Apparently the other unreal less viable alternative couldnt convince people enough that he was a lying, war mongering, poodle that should be charged with crimes against humanity for him to be booted. I mean if these were serious charges, any viable alternative would be better than a war criminal.
That is because the Tories, who are meant to be more right-wing than the Labour Party, believed that the invasion was the right thing to do, even after they acknowledged that Tony Blair misled the public.

Michael Howard decided to base his campaign mainly on the issue of immigration.

The Liberal Democrats were hardly "anti-war" either.

It is a fact, however, that in England, the Tories won more votes than Labour.

[cyu]

If everyone were wealthy, people wouldn&#39;t be without health care in your favorite capitalist country would they?
Why wouldn&#39;t they be? I can&#39;t guarantee that everyone is going to be 100% rational and not waste the money they should have spent on health insurance on drugs and booze instead, can I?

You&#39;ve got to be kidding. Never been to a poor neighborhood where people have to choose between paying the rent and paying for health care. I don&#39;t know what Utopia you&#39;re living in, but it&#39;s time to come back to reality.



The fact of the matter is, having some people far wealthier than everyone else hurts the average person in a market economy. The reason is because by being able to spend more than other people, he causes resources like labor and raw materials to be diverted away from serving the average person, causing greater scarcity. No matter how good you say capitalism is, it can always get better for the general population if the wealthy didn&#39;t have so much spending power. Simple economics.
This is so ridiculous it doesn&#39;t even warrant a comment.


What&#39;s the matter? Can&#39;t formulate a rebuttal? I could just reply to each of your comments with a "You&#39;re stupid", but that isn&#39;t going to convince anybody unless I actually offer some explanation. [Then again, I doubt you&#39;ll be able to convince any anti-capitalists on an anti-capitalist web site anyway.]

Oh, and by the way, you&#39;re stupid :D

[Tungsten]

cyu

You&#39;ve got to be kidding. Never been to a poor neighborhood where people have to choose between paying the rent and paying for health care.
I used to live near a place far worse than the one you describe. I know why these people are in poverty and I&#39;ve seen and heard it first hand- I&#39;m not some preaching some ideological rubbish about the reasons I&#39;d like people to have landed in poverty, as you are. Drink and drugs are the main reasons. The people who are genuinely poverty sticken through no fault of their own were few and far between- most were victims of the local council&#39;s excessive taxation.

I don&#39;t know what Utopia you&#39;re living in, but it&#39;s time to come back to reality.
Which middle-class burb do you live in? I get the feeling that the TV is about as close as you&#39;ve ever been to real poverty.

What&#39;s the matter? Can&#39;t formulate a rebuttal?
-Publius already did one. There wasn&#39;t any need. (What are you, stupid?)
-You didn&#39;t explain or prove any of it, so it was just a baseless assertion.

[cyu]

Publius already did one. There wasn&#39;t any need.

Where? I&#39;d like to see it. In any case, what part of the allocation of resources don&#39;t you understand? A market economy allocates resources based on what people can spend. If I spend a dollar, I&#39;m directing a small part of the resources to be allocated to producing what I&#39;m buying. So far so good? I have no problem with what was just described - it&#39;s a fine way of determining how resources are allocated.

The problem comes up when a small segment of the population is allowed to amass a fortune much bigger than everyone else. It would be fine if they didn&#39;t actually spend any of their money, because the market would not be affected. The problem comes up if they spend it. This causes a disproportionate amount of the resources in the economy to be allocated to serve their desires (butlers, mansions, drivers, etc) - leaving less resources left for everyone else. The larger the gap between rich and poor, the more serious this problem becomes. Honestly, I don&#39;t know what part of this explanation you object to.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:51 PM
It&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fault that people in non-capitalist countries are starving?

It&#39;s effective for us and it&#39;ll be effective for them too when they eventually get started.

Neither has mine. Tee hee hee.
What non-capitalist countries are you refering to?

Tee Hee Hee :blink: Always a good response.

[Connolly]

Okay, so you&#39;re having a revolution out of "compassion" in order to "advance the working class", which you are justified in doing because of "historical materialism". Okay, the revolution&#39;s over. You&#39;ve won. Now what do we do?

Its the 12th of March 3298. Any ideas who will win the world cup? I predict Fiji will be in with a chance.



They&#39;re not, otherwise Marx would have been a capitalist- his opinions and ideology defined by his material conditions.

I always wondered what Bill Gates would have been 10,000 years ago - probably a capitalist, mmm, yes, exploiting the ants maybe. :lol:

[Epoche]

Pubs:


What a stupid point to argue from, then.

"We should have a revolution. We don&#39;t know what we&#39;ll do after the revolution, we aren&#39;t sure the revolution will actually emancipate the proleteriat, we aren&#39;t sure the revolution will even work, but we should have a revolution&#33;"

Tell me, did the world envision capitalism as it evolved out of primitive feudalisms and despotisms? Let&#39;s go back in time so I can ask you the same question you are asking us, here. Your response would look something like this:

"We should have a revolution. We don&#39;t know what we&#39;ll do after the revolution, we aren&#39;t sure the revolution will actually emancipate the peasants, we aren&#39;t sure the revolution will even work, but we should have a revolution&#33;"


Logically, my theory is as valid as yours.

Precisely&#33; But there are all kinds of problems with propositional "logic," if you haven&#39;t noticed (see Deconstructionsists if you dare), while historical materialism is VERY REAL. A communist doesn&#39;t need to describe his utopia...he merely needs to renovate what political system DOES exist. If we become beasts again...so be it. That&#39;s not a far shot from where us workers are now. Not much of a loss if you ask me. I have nothing to lose but my chains.

CC:


So essentially what you people are telling me is socialism is so convoluted that none of you can agree on a specific theory that could top capitalism.

Your asking us the same nonsensical question that Pubs asked. Furthermore, a "theory" is never an actuality...it is a prediction. Just as your "capitalism" was theoretical before it was developed, so too is communism.


The Funniest thing about this entire board is that the software its run on was created by IPS incorporated, aside from the fact that you are all typing away about the evils of capitalism on Dell,Gateway,Sony PCs YOU FUCKING PAID FOR. How can you sit there with a straight face and expect me to believe you would rather live in a socialist society that would be completely incapable of making those same computers (if you think it could, please feel free to elaborate HOW it would).

Tssk..tssk. That&#39;s weak, man. What, do you think we&#39;re going to use homing pigeons to communicate? Sometimes one must fight fire with fire, no? And do you think that computers won&#39;t exist in a communism, or technology for that matter?

You&#39;ve really got to try harder, man. My nephew could come up with better arguments.

[red team]

We can, based on our historical understanding, and of pure compassion for those exploited - fight for the rights and advancements of the working class.

Okay, so you&#39;re having a revolution out of "compassion" in order to "advance the working class", which you are justified in doing because of "historical materialism". Okay, the revolution&#39;s over. You&#39;ve won. Now what do we do?


Democratization of the workplace would be a good idea.
Decisions will be made by consensus instead of by decree.

Democratization of the economy meaning workers paid according to work performed.
Abolition of profit.

But beyond that only scientific and technological progress can provide a lasting solution.

Name any world problem and I can tell you that, although science and technology may not solve it, anything else cannot solve it. So you have the choice. Possible victory with science and technology, or certain defeat without it.

Furthermore, contemporary economics is as much a science as astrology or numerology is a science which means it isn&#39;t, so economic "solutions" will also be inadequate.

[Tungsten]

red team

Democratization of the workplace would be a good idea.
Decisions will be made by consensus instead of by decree.
How will this work in practice?

Democratization of the economy meaning workers paid according to work performed.
You mean by vote, don&#39;t you? Again, how&#39;s this going to work in practice?

Name any world problem and I can tell you that, although science and technology may not solve it, anything else cannot solve it. So you have the choice. Possible victory with science and technology, or certain defeat without it.
How is science and technology in itself going to provide us with an adequate defence against totalitariansm? Oh wait- totalitarianism was your goal, wasn&#39;t it?

Furthermore, contemporary economics is as much a science as astrology or numerology is a science which means it isn&#39;t, so economic "solutions" will also be inadequate.
I&#39;ve heard similar claims that Marx was the Darwin of economics. Real world evidence to back this up, however, remains elusive.
The RedBanner

Its the 12th of March 3298. Any ideas who will win the world cup? I predict Fiji will be in with a chance.
You need to work on your strategy a little more. Saying the revolution is going to happen far into the future is as good as saying that it&#39;s never going to happen at all. You need to keep telling people that it&#39;s always just around the corner (well, it is, but not in the sense that you mean) so that people remain on their toes.

But don&#39;t tell anyone- it&#39;s meant to be a secret.

[cyu]

Democratization of the workplace would be a good idea.
Decisions will be made by consensus instead of by decree.
How will this work in practice?

How does political democracy work in practice? Employees write up a constitution. Some may prefer direct democracy, some may prefer representative democracy. In any case, they work it out, take responsibility for their own futures, and off they go. The key is that the future of the company remains in the hands of the employees, just as (theoretically) the future of a democratic nation remains in the hands of the citizens.

[red team]

Democratization of the workplace would be a good idea.
Decisions will be made by consensus instead of by decree.
How will this work in practice?


Certain things are restricted: profit, price negotiation, permanent ownership, inheritance.

Other than that why should it not work out in practice.
Democratic decision making only requires a forum of debate and consensus.

Is this not a forum for debate and reaching consensus? :lol:



Democratization of the economy meaning workers paid according to work performed.
You mean by vote, don&#39;t you? Again, how&#39;s this going to work in practice?


Non-negotiable, non-tradable labour vouchers agreed upon by consensus for the given work performed multiplied by time involved in work. To be consumed upon the act of purchasing which prevents circulation.

Later to be replaced with an energy certificate in which everybody get equal divided amounts of the total available pooled energy of the world when manual labour becomes entirely automated.



Name any world problem and I can tell you that, although science and technology may not solve it, anything else cannot solve it. So you have the choice. Possible victory with science and technology, or certain defeat without it.
How is science and technology in itself going to provide us with an adequate defence against totalitariansm? Oh wait- totalitarianism was your goal, wasn&#39;t it?


Did economic shell games solved the problem of growing enough food?

Nope. it was science which came through with field rotation, modern irrigation techniques, mechanization of farming and fertilization.

Did economic shell games solved the problem of finding the cause to diseases?

Nope. Adam Smith never contributed a damn thing to the medical discovery of the microbial causes of disease. Prayer, charms and leeches were still used in his time.

Who discovered A.C. electricity? An economist fortune teller or a materialist scientist? The economist fortune teller facilitated this? No, Tesla operated under the most scarce circumstances.

Score: economist fortune tellers = 0, materialist scientists = 3 (many more unlisted)

As far as "totalitarianism" is concerned, that is a subjective, undefinable term which even you have failed to provide an impartial definition for. If you can&#39;t define it then it&#39;s irrelevant.

[Tungsten]

red team

Certain things are restricted: profit, price negotiation, permanent ownership, inheritance.
Why?

Other than that why should it not work out in practice.
Democratic decision making only requires a forum of debate and consensus.
Democracy often doesn&#39;t work.

Non-negotiable, non-tradable labour vouchers agreed upon by consensus for the given work performed multiplied by time involved in work.
LTV?

Did economic shell games solved the problem of growing enough food?

Nope. it was science which came through with field rotation, modern irrigation techniques, mechanization of farming and fertilization.
What good is all of the above when el predsidente can walk in and take all your food away whenever he likes?

Did economic shell games solved the problem of finding the cause to diseases?
What good is a cure if it can be refused at the whim of a dictator? It&#39;s of no use at all.

Nope. Adam Smith never contributed a damn thing to the medical discovery of the microbial causes of disease. Prayer, charms and leeches were still used in his time.
Not to mention it&#39;s political collorary- totalitarian government.

Who discovered A.C. electricity? An economist fortune teller or a materialist scientist? The economist fortune teller facilitated this? No, Tesla operated under the most scarce circumstances.
I wonder how well tesla would have operated under the Spanish inquisition- no rights, property seizure at whim, exection without trial. Scientific progress tends to grind to a halt under those conditions.

As far as "totalitarianism" is concerned, that is a subjective,
It most definitely isn&#39;t. If you live and die at my political whim, then I&#39;m a totalitarian. If I have total control over every aspect of your life, then I&#39;m a totalitarian.

undefinable term which even you have failed to provide an impartial definition for. If you can&#39;t define it then it&#39;s irrelevant.
Because you advocate it, and you know it.

[cyu]

Other than that why should it not work out in practice.
Democratic decision making only requires a forum of debate and consensus.
Democracy often doesn&#39;t work.

Dictatorship often doesn&#39;t work. Your point is? Are you offering an alternative to democracy and dictatorship?

[Tungsten]

Dictatorship often doesn&#39;t work. Your point is? Are you offering an alternative to democracy and dictatorship?
Yes I am- limited democracy, where the realm of economics and rights aren&#39;t open to negotiation.

[cyu]

Dictatorship often doesn&#39;t work. Your point is? Are you offering an alternative to democracy and dictatorship?
Yes I am- limited democracy, where the realm of economics and rights aren&#39;t open to negotiation.

Who gets to determine what parts of economics and which rights aren&#39;t open to negotiation? What are the criteria used to make this determination?

[Zero]

OMFG&#33;&#33; AHAA ohh wow. You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about "captain". Let me give you some Internet 101.


Originally posted by "CaptainCapitalist"+--> ("CaptainCapitalist")1) You list Linux and Wikidpedia as if they had nearly the same amount of users as Windows, despite being freeware. Apparently people are willing to PAY for user friendly software. Competition obvioulsy won that fight, scratch that example.[/b]
Linux has hundreds of thousands of people residing in every country in the world. It is true that there are more people who use Windows in this world, however do you really expect someone who knows nothing about computers to go through all the trouble of buying a new operating system that their kiddie doesn&#39;t know anything about when Windows comes PRE INSTALLED on the computer? Now, also, ask yourself. Do you see any commercials for Linux? Do you see any ads put out by Linus Torvalds? No. It is self-propagated through the Internet. The many different distros come from 500 Kb, floppy-loaded, command prompt, Unix-style processing, Command Shell; to 15 Gig Server/client SuSE 10.0.
Next, Wikipedia is the most popular online resource in my opinion, in my friends opinion, and my guess is of almost every teacher or student alike. I haven&#39;t seen anything else more usefull then Wikipedia... if you have, please enlighten me...


Originally posted by "CaptainCapitalist"@
2) No, the internet does NOT run on free non-competative software.....this board was made possible by http://www.invisionpower.com/. Try again.
Wrongo. IPS does not run the web. The Internet is a decentralised network of many thousands of server farms spread throughout the world (mostly in the US, UK, Germany, and Japan.) Apache is the most used Internet Webhosting server software. (http://www.apache.org/) which is completely OSD (Open Source Development), aka free software. It is true that IPB (part of IPS) does make the majority of forums out there, and I personally like IPB more then PHPBB (http://www.phpbb.com/ the free, Open Source alternative to IPB) but if IPB suddenly fell off the earth, we would simply move to Open Source. http://sourceforge.net is currently the largest hub of OSD software, also http://freshmeat.net has quite a large ammount of OSD software for Linux, Unix, Windows, and even Solaris.
Next, you may know some of these websites. All of which run on Linux, and are powered by Apache:
http://www.google.com
http://sourceforge.net
http://slashdot.org
http://www.imageshack.com
http://www.pricegrabber.com
http://www.intel.com
http://www.microsoft.com (really.)


"CaptainCapitalist"
3) A society produces QUALITY products such as the PC you are arguing with me on from trade...trade you have obviously engaged in despite your socialist/anarchist/marxist convictions....if you want to take that blatant hypocracy as an &#39;insult&#39; well all i can say is
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/729 Read this. This book is about MIT computer hackers who assembled, and built the first personal computers out of a hobby. Many who started the first companies just so they could keep up a living creating software, and creating hardware out of pure fun. Many of these hackers lost relationships, lost their houses, and lost their friends, just because they had been DOING what they LOVED, however they were trying to do so in this society&#33; Doing what you love is what Socialism wants to promote. The computer industry wouldn&#39;t be here if it weren&#39;t for the smarts of MIT, or Berkeley kids who loved the logistics of circutry, or computing to the point where they would forgo all other cultural requirements to further their desire to be around computers. Do you know what the first game was? It was a collective project undertook by five different MIT hackers on the PDP-10 (or 8, I can&#39;t quite remember.) This is where the game industry spawned from, and these are the people who put their heart and soul into their products... do you know what they got in return? "Cool game dude&#33;" "Wow man... this is awesome&#33;" "Holy moly&#33; Computers are fun&#33;" And you know what they did in return? They just kept hacking.

Do you know where it went from there? Buisness majors got ahold of it, and raped the products. Where first there were quality products, then became deadlines. Thanks to your slick suits we&#39;re where we are, whereas if we had a system of mutual trust, and a system which praised quality products, rather then how much money they will make; we would most likely be communicating through nural interface, or colonising Mars. Capitalism praises fast products, and insatisfactory results. No wonder AMD can make a processer last longer, process faster, and run cooler then anything Intel can pump out.

[red team]

It most definitely isn&#39;t. If you live and die at my political whim, then I&#39;m a totalitarian. If I have total control over every aspect of your life, then I&#39;m a totalitarian.


Meaningless. Capitalism is "totalitarian" if I refuse involuntary unemployment.
If I and thousands other refuse to move away from my employer&#39;s property because the decision was made to fire everybody then force in the form of officially authorized club wielding thugs will be called in. What is more "totalitarian" than that?

Please provide a formal definition.

Your examples are historical examples of another system having nothing to do with Communism.

You did not provide any proof that every aspect of life is controlled under the system I advocate.

[Tungsten]

red team

Meaningless. Capitalism is "totalitarian" if I refuse involuntary unemployment.
What sloppy thinking. You don&#39;t have the "right to be employed"- that&#39;s making a demand on someone who might not want to employ you, which would be banned. I have total control over someone because I don&#39;t want to employ them? It doesn&#39;t follow.

If I and thousands other refuse to move away from my employer&#39;s property because the decision was made to fire everybody then force in the form of officially authorized club wielding thugs will be called in.
The thugs would be you- for taking over someone&#39;s property and refusing to leave. Just like a person walking into your house and refusing to leave. In a society where such things are permitted, totalitarianism usually results.

Please provide a formal definition.
I&#39;m not jumping through hoops to please you, nor am I offering you an opportunity to worm your way out.

Your examples are historical examples of another system having nothing to do with Communism.
But they do, as I&#39;ve shown above. i.e. The "right" to employment, the "right" to take over other people&#39;s property.

You did not provide any proof that every aspect of life is controlled under the system I advocate.
If I can just take your property at whim and be allowed to get away with it, the it&#39;s but a short hop to a society where I can do whatever I like to you and get away with it too.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Capitalism doesn&#39;t exist in those so-called "capitalist states" such as Mexico, Russia, Argentina and Haiti because the free market doesn&#39;t exist.

Free markets by definition INCLUDE the protection of property rights. Since corruption is so widespread in those nation, property rights protection doesn&#39;t exist and therefore free market capitalism doesn&#39;t exist.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:46 PM
red team


If I and thousands other refuse to move away from my employer&#39;s property because the decision was made to fire everybody then force in the form of officially authorized club wielding thugs will be called in.
The thugs would be you- for taking over someone&#39;s property and refusing to leave. Just like a person walking into your house and refusing to leave. In a society where such things are permitted, totalitarianism usually results.

Please provide a formal definition.
I&#39;m not jumping through hoops to please you, nor am I offering you an opportunity to worm your way out.

Your examples are historical examples of another system having nothing to do with Communism.
But they do, as I&#39;ve shown above. i.e. The "right" to employment, the "right" to take over other people&#39;s property.

You did not provide any proof that every aspect of life is controlled under the system I advocate.
If I can just take your property at whim and be allowed to get away with it, the it&#39;s but a short hop to a society where I can do whatever I like to you and get away with it too.


Meaningless. Capitalism is "totalitarian" if I refuse involuntary unemployment.
What sloppy thinking. You don&#39;t have the "right to be employed"- that&#39;s making a demand on someone who might not want to employ you, which would be banned. I have total control over someone because I don&#39;t want to employ them? It doesn&#39;t follow.


if you claim ownership over their labour which was never yours to claim in the first place, but they "agreed" because the bosses have a monopoly on ownership of resources, then you are in effect a slave master, therefore your ownership claims over their labour is invalid. The workers have no reason to respect any bosses orders.

I justify seizures of the means of production from the fact that production in any enterprise involving wage work is a social activity with no one worker or investor claiming total ownership of the finished product because no one worker or investor is responsible for the finished product. The fact that original sources of wealth backing fictitious money is also related to the fact that people who have money now are also associated with people who brutally exploited people in the past. This corresponds to the demographic fact that there are more super-wealthy white people than super-wealthy black or hispanic people. But that is beside the point. You can be a nouveau rich by relying on investment capital to start up your profit-making, worker-renting racket. That investment capital you&#39;re relying on have their original roots in slavery or near-slavery which is basically the same thing. Your prattling on that it&#39;s your company because you originally put up the capital or rely on other investors to put up the capital is invalid without explaining where that investment Capital originated. We all know how fictitious paper money became valuable 220 years ago in America. Everything else including subsequent wealth concentrations flows from that point onwards.

In an entirely commodity barren land like America was 200 years ago, why would anybody work for paper money or gold for that matter? What&#39;s the use of it? Before I can use it trade for something that something must be built from labour. But who&#39;s labouring for what?

1. all persons must acquire money in order to purchase a product to claim ownership over the said product.

2. You gain money by either engaging in activities to increase the material ownership of another person or group which has money or borrow it from the bank. In either case money represents ownership of resources.

The obvious question is then where did the bank or individual or company gain ownership as represented by money originally?

If the bank or individual or company acquired it from previous bank or individual or company then you have an endless regression in ownership claims which proves absolutely nothing about the validity of the ownership claim in question. Conclusion, ownership claims as represented by money and anything purchased by it is logically unprovable and therefore invalid.

How is power over another person gained from except originally by force?
Power relations originates from force.
If you can&#39;t prove the opposite
Power relations do not originate from force
Your arguments again have no proof.
So your claim of irrelevance of the argument is false

If you&#39;re not using something, that something is useless to you.
Same goes for me.
Same goes for everybody else.

In other words, you don&#39;t have a right to claim valid ownership over the labour of workers and hence no valid authority over workers because:

1 Your sources of investments for building that factory or shop have questionable origins
1b Investors including banks source of investments have questionable origins.

2 You failed to give an equal return on equal labour performed by workers

3 All production in a Capitalist system have owners that have the above two conditions true.

4 Profit itself is extraneous to the production process

5 Profit is unjustifiable theft because no corresponding proportional labour was performed in return for it relative to the labour performed by the direct producers (workers).

6 Money is subjective nonsense quantifying nothing

7 The value of fictitious money have their origins in early conquest, slavery and later disguised theft (profits).

8 Because of above three points ownership claims through money purchases of means of production like factories and shops are invalid.

9 Power relations in society have their origins in subjugation through force

10 Because workers in the present found themselves in an arbitrarily poor position because they did not have access to questionable sources of money and able to be profiteers themselves, they are compelled to rely on other profiteers for money. In other words they are compelled into economic exploitation out of necessity. See point #9.

11 If you are not using something then that something is useless to you

Since a factory or shop is a place where hired wage labour occurs, you have no authority over the workers there because the workers have no reason to respect your orders. Therefore, your decision to fire them is invalid. They have no reason to respect your orders to move away.

[cyu]

If I and thousands other refuse to move away from my employer&#39;s property because the decision was made to fire everybody then force in the form of officially authorized club wielding thugs will be called in.
The thugs would be you- for taking over someone&#39;s property and refusing to leave. Just like a person walking into your house and refusing to leave.

There&#39;s a difference between the company building and the home. The home is used by the person living there. The company building is used by the employees. In both cases, ownership rests with the person using it.