Socialism and Fascism

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I was arguing with some neo-con today and he claimed that socialism and fascism are one in the same and provided this article. I'm not sure how to respond. What do you think? I know that they are opposites but I don't know how to argue it.



Socialism and Fascism

In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.

To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's Fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not. Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism. Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similars can be seen in a common definition of fascism: "A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).

Socialist states have included the USSR(1), Communist China, socialist Sweden, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea, and a handful of lesser regimes in Eastern Europe, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. Once again, there is a prima facie difficulty in determining what factor these various states held in common. After all, some socialist regimes (like Sweden's and England's) were elected democratically. Others, like the USSR's and the PRC's, were the result of popular violent revolutions. Still others were the product of either military coup (Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam) or foreign invasion (the Eastern Bloc). The trait common to all of these is provided, once again by the definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary).

Now that we have these two concepts (socialism and fascism) squarely on the table, we can spell out their differences and similarities. It is obvious that there are numerous differences between socialism and fascism, the most obvious of which concerns their view of private property. Socialism abolishes the institution entirely; fascism does not. For instance, in the Soviet Union, citizens had to wait years for their names to come up on a list to receive a car from the government. At the same time, everyone is familiar with the existence of wealthy property owners like Oskar Schindler who lived under the Nazi regime. This difference in ideology did in fact manifest itself in actual historical practice. The communists and Social Democrats were, in fact, the main opponents of the rise of Nazi power in Weimar Germany; Nazi Germany and Socialist Russia were at each other's throats in World War II.

True enough: We can put socialism and fascism on a table and stare at them all we like, and all we may see will be differences. What is required to go beyond this is to widen our context of knowledge. For instance, let's say we draw two geometrical figures on the chalkboard: a scalene and an isosceles. If we focus merely on these two concretes, without widening our context, we will see nothing but difference. The two triangles have different angles, different side lengths, different locations, different sizes. Now imagine that we introduce a foil: We draw a square on the board. The difference between the first two triangles is still there, but is made insignificant by the even greater difference between the triangles, on the one hand, and the square on the other. This process of differentiation allows us to see the triangles as similar. If we are able to isolate an essential characteristic of the group (a difference bewteen the triangles and squares which explains all or most of the other differences between them), we can then integrate this group of similars into a single mental unit, uniting it by a common definition, i.e., forming a concept.(2)

We can treat social systems in the same way in which we treat geometical figures. As we observed before, there are probably innumerable differences between socialism and fascism. But what happens if we introduce a foil here, as well? Let's imagine that we introduce a third type of social system. Rather than having society control all property, and rather than having dictatorship in one form or another, we introduce a system in which individuals are free to follow the dictates of their own mind. Rather than having a system in which the choice is between the abridgment of political freedom or the abridgment of economic freedom, we introduce one in which no one's freedom is to be abridged. In short, we introduce capitalism : the social system in which all property is privately owned, and the government's function is restricted to the protection of individual rights.

Once we remember the possibility of the existence of such a system, the differences between socialism and fascism become trivial, superficial and, above all, non-essential. Differentiation of socialism and fascism from capitalism permits the recognition of their similarity. They do differ from each other, but only in the way in which the scalene and the isosceles differ from each other: in degree, but not in kind. Socialism and fascism are each forms of statism, forms of government in which the government is given complete or extensive control over the lives of its citizens.

This theoretical consideration has massive consequences in the practical realm: The differences we noted before turn out not to be as important as we once might have thought.

It is true that fascist systems permitted property ownership, while socialist ones did not. However, fascist "property rights" were only nominal: A businessman (such as Oskar Schindler) would retain legal title to his goods, but he would not retain any control over them. Because he was not politically free, the government could order him to use his property as it desired (such as by using it to produce war implements) -- even if it was _his_ property that was being used. Just as there can be no split between mind and body, there can be no split between political freedom and economic freedom. Man cannot exist without a mind and a body, and he cannot be free if someone else controls either.

It is true that the Nazis and socialists were rivals for power in Weimar Germany. On account of their similar political ideologies, however, this rivalry collapsed in the face of the defeat of their common enemy: capitalism. Forgive me for "quoting Ayn Rand", but the following is a matter of historical fact:

...in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis -- with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government ("'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing", September 1964, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 180).

Dr. Leonard Peikoff reaffirms this point in his book, The Ominous Parallels:

The communists, too, wanted to use Hitler. Time after time their deputies voted with the Nazis in the Reichstag; they voted against legislation designed to cope with emergencies, against measures designed to curb violence, against attempts to maintain in office any kind of stable government. The Communists even agreed to cooperate with Nazi thugs. In November 1932, for instance, the two mortal enemies could be observed standing comfortably, shoulder to shoulder, on the streets of Berlin, collecting money to support a violent strike by the city's transportation workers.

When Hitler's fortunes seemed to be faltering for a time in 1932, a stream of anxious Nazis poured into the ranks of the Communists; the Germans watching said that a Nazi is like beefsteak: brown on the outside, red on the inside. Soon, however, the traffic was in the opposite direction. "[T]here is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it," said Hitler to Rauschning. "There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will" (Quoting from Rauschning's The Voice of Destruction, pg. 131) (Peikoff, 221).
Peikoff continues:

In the final months the Communists viewed the growing Nazi strength with equanimity. The triumph of Nazism, they said, has been ordained by the dialectic process; such triumph will lead to the destruction of the republican form of government, which is a necessary stage in the achievement of communism. Afterward, they said, the Nazis will quickly fade and the party of Lenin can take over (222).

As for the Social Democrats, Dr. Peikoff notes that

The Social Democrats, meanwhile, were being "tamed" in another way by Chancellor Franz von Papen. In July 1932, using only a token armed force, he ousted them illegally from the government of Prussia. The party leaders understood that this coup, if uncontested, would mean the loss of their last bastion of strength. But they observed the swelling ranks of the Nazis and Communists; the Prussian police and the German army brimming with nationalist militants; the millions of unemployed workers, which made the prospects for a general strike bleak -- and they decided to capitulate without a fight, lest they provoke a bloody civil war they had no heart to wage and little chance to win....There were not many Social Democrats who rose up in fury over 'the rape of Prussia.' The party had long since lost most of those who take ideas or causes seriously. there was not much youtful ardor to summon to the side of social democracy. "Republik, das ist nicht viel, Sozialismus is unser Ziel" ("A republic, that is not much, socialism is our goal") -- such were the signs carried in parades by young workers of the period (222).

The reason for which the Social Democrats were so passive was not a mere inability to practice their principles consistently. It was, instead, a matter of the logical import of their principles. As Dr. Peikoff notes: "The republicans in every political party and group were in the same position: more and more, the contradictions involved in their views were leaving these men lifeless, and even speechless. They could hardly praise freedom very eloquently, not while they themselves, like everyone else, were insisting on further statist measures to cope with the economic crisis" (222-223).

To the extent that any of these political groups did clash in Weimar Germany, the clashes were not over matters of principle. They were of the variety of conflict seen most often in inner city America, where rival gangs fight over turf, over such trivial difference as the color of clothing worn by the other gang. In the end, whoever happens to win is a pointless consideration. The result is the same: blood in the streets.

As for the conflict between the Nazis and the USSR, one need only recall the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1937, in which the two powers agreed to divide up Eastern Europe together. Hitler and Stalin apparently had no problem in principle with working together to exterminate freedom in peaceful nations.

In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.

(Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)

[Fascism stresses] the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, in behalf of society...For Liberalism, the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ulitmate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

[ZX3]

They are "opposites" in this sense:

Shoemaker "A" is the competitor to Shoemaker "B." But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy to both.

The nazis and communists were competitors, not enemies. Its why "fascist" groups always seem to be made up of former members of other socialist groups; why their political base is drawn from the base of other socialist parties; and why in general the socialists are so unable to deal with "fascist" parties.

Who are the enemies? Why, the Right of course, which has always defended freedom and liberty across the world and across the ages...

[colonelguppy]

the kind of are as they both sacrifice individual liberty for the good of the whole. they do it in completely different ways though.

or atleast thats the intent of both.

[apathy maybe]

removed by user request

[apathy maybe]

In summary, the author screws up when he tries to claim as socialist a whole bunch of states which aren't. This is not the first mistake, however. He continually does not use the definition of socialism given in the first few paragraphs, misuses the terms "communist" and "communism" and makes other semantical mistakes. He claims capitalism as providing freedom and so on, but fails to notice or point out how none of the actual capitalist states providing freedom. It is plausible that the author meant some mythical minimal state, but he then has no grounds for attacking real communism or other anarchisms as these also have "not been tried". The authors knowledge of history too seems to be sketchy, which makes his arguments even less plausible.

Any way, the article was a load of shit, I recommend that you do not pollute your minds by reading it. (My mind is already too polluted :))

Obviously they are not only not the same, they are completely different. People who argue that socialism and fascism are the same are generally redefining socialism to mean what they want it to mean, I could equally redefine capitalism to mean the same as fascism. It would be equally valid (not at all in other words).

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)They are "opposites" in this sense:

Shoemaker "A" is the competitor to Shoemaker "B." But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy to both.

The nazis and communists were competitors, not enemies. Its why "fascist" groups always seem to be made up of former members of other socialist groups; why their political base is drawn from the base of other socialist parties; and why in general the socialists are so unable to deal with "fascist" parties.

Who are the enemies? Why, the Right of course, which has always defended freedom and liberty across the world and across the ages...[/b]You must be taking the piss correct? Often the same sort of people attracted to fascist groups are the same sort of people who are attracted to socialist groups. Disenfranchised, often poor, often under educated and so on. But that same sort of person is often attracted to fundamentalist religion, is Islam the same as socialism now?

The Right the defender of "freedom and liberty across the world and across the ages..."? You are taking the piss. You have to be. Depending on what you mean by right (classical liberal, (western) conservative, fascist or whatever) you would be wrong on all counts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean "liberal democracies" (such as the USA). They successfully defended freedom and liberty in Chile in 1973 didn't they. Successfully defended it in Hungry in 1956, then again in Czechoslovakia in '68. The Vietnamese loved the freedom they had before the Communists took over, the South Koreans before "democracy" came and so on.

The right have never defended freedom and liberty except when it has suited them, or when it directly impacts on the rich, wealthy and/or powerful.


colonelguppy
the kind of are as they both sacrifice individual liberty for the good of the whole. they do it in completely different ways though.

or atleast thats the intent of both.Glad to see you recognise some difference in style. But I disagree. Socialism is about the individual as much as the collective.

[Huelguista]

Nicey put, Apathy...glad to have someone with your knowledge on our side. I can see where a few people might doubt their beliefs due to this article and glad that you cleared that up.

[Matty_UK]

I stopped reading after he talked about socialist Sweden and socialist Britain.

I mean, really, that's just stupid.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I stopped reading after he talked about socialist Sweden and socialist Britain.

thats exactly what i did too. I made a goofy laugh though which i regret.

Seriously, there are loads of people who do thing like this simply as a way to discredit somthing.

Just look at all the western media, if they throw enough mud, people will believe what there told.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Socialist... Britain? :unsure: That's a new one to me...

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 18 2006, 08:08 AM
Glad to see you recognise some difference in style. But I disagree. Socialism is about the individual as much as the collective.
not in terms of freedom, maybe in terms of equity.

[apathy maybe]

Both in terms of equality and freedom. Anarchism could be considered to be about providing the greatest freedom for the greatest number.

And yes the article is a crock of shit. The gives a definition of socialism and then proceeds not to use it. What a great way to show that socilaism and fascism are the same thing.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 18 2006, 08:46 PM
Both in terms of equality and freedom. Anarchism could be considered to be about providing the greatest freedom for the greatest number.
maybe for the strong

[apathy maybe]

I guess you are not drunk then ... After all that was a pretty shit post. (Unless you just post shit all the time.)

You might not venture outside of your hole, but really you should. There are many resources on RevLeft which describe anarchism. Do a quick search or look in the Learning forum.

Do you let someone beat someone else up in the middle of a street? In an anarchist society 1) it is improbable that someone would beat someone up in the middle of the street, and 2) they would be stopped by anyone and everyone.

[Invader Zim]

I stopped when I reached this point: -

"Taken in full historical context,"

If I tried to claim that Nazi Germany Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, etc, were 'socialist' I would fail my history degree.

But then again, if I tried to claim that nazi Germany was 'fascist' as the author does I would also fail my degree. I hate it when conservatives start trying to pretend they know what they are talking about in regards to history - it is invariably embarrising.

[Tungsten]

s3rna

Socialist... Britain? That's a new one to me...
He must be talking about the 1974-79 labour government which fucked up my country. Go on, tell me how it wasn't "real socialism".
Invader Zim

If I tried to claim that Nazi Germany Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, etc, were 'socialist' I would fail my history degree.
That tells us more about academia than history.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:25 PM
s3rna

Socialist... Britain? That's a new one to me...
He must be talking about the 1974-79 labour government which fucked up my country. Go on, tell me how it wasn't "real socialism".
Invader Zim

If I tried to claim that Nazi Germany Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, etc, were 'socialist' I would fail my history degree.
That tells us more about academia than history.
Nope, it says that you have no understanding.

But, i'll give you a shot Tungsten. Lets see what you've got - explain how any of these dictatorships were 'socialist'.

[Tungsten]

Invader Zim

But, i'll give you a shot Tungsten. Lets see what you've got - explain how any of these dictatorships were 'socialist'.
The both believed in the unlimited supremacy of the collective or state over the individual. From there on, everything else fell into place. It doesn't make any difference to me whether it's brand X or statism or brand Y of statism- they're both harmful. It's just a question of degreee.

And please- don't give me any hogwash about how there won't be a state under socialism (pure semantics).

[colonelguppy]

I guess you are not drunk then ... After all that was a pretty shit post. (Unless you just post shit all the time.)

You might not venture outside of your hole, but really you should. There are many resources on RevLeft which describe anarchism. Do a quick search or look in the Learning forum.

i know how anarchist think of anarchism, but anarchists are stupid.


Do you let someone beat someone else up in the middle of a street?

depends on the situation.


1) it is improbable that someone would beat someone up in the middle of the street

why?


2) they would be stopped by anyone and everyone.

why? and how, what if the force of the perpetrator is greater than that of anyone around? or what if the perpetrator consists of all the other people around?

this doesn't even cover for things like crimes in private and theft.

[Invader Zim]

The both believed in the unlimited supremacy of the collective or state over the individual.


Neither fascism nor socialism are categorised by that trend within society. You confuse the authoritarianism of fascism and the centralisation of some forms of socialism with totalitarianism. This is of course because you don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe you should get back to class and sit a few history classes and while your at it a few politics classes wouldn't go a miss.

Sorry son, you took your shot and you missed.

Better luck next time.

[Free Left]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:25 PM

I guess you are not drunk then ... After all that was a pretty shit post. (Unless you just post shit all the time.)

You might not venture outside of your hole, but really you should. There are many resources on RevLeft which describe anarchism. Do a quick search or look in the Learning forum.

i know how anarchist think of anarchism, but anarchists are stupid.


Do you let someone beat someone else up in the middle of a street?

depends on the situation.


1) it is improbable that someone would beat someone up in the middle of the street

why?


2) they would be stopped by anyone and everyone.

why? and how, what if the force of the perpetrator is greater than that of anyone around? or what if the perpetrator consists of all the other people around?

this doesn't even cover for things like crimes in private and theft.
First of all, You would let someone beat someone else up in the middle of the street? Just stand there and watch?

And , pray, how are Anarchists stupid?

[Tungsten]

Invader Zim

Neither fascism nor socialism are categorised by that trend within society.
I'm afraid they are. And there's plenty of evidence to support it, both from the behaviour and the ethics of these systems.

You confuse the authoritarianism of fascism and the centralisation of some forms of socialism with totalitarianism. This is of course because you don’t know what you are talking about.
On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Where exactly is this decentralised socialism? How can socialism feasibly work without being centralised?

Maybe you should get back to class and sit a few history classes and while your at it a few politics classes wouldn't go a miss.
I'm sure parroting some marxist college professor will make me infinitely wiser. Not.

[colonelguppy]

First of all, You would let someone beat someone else up in the middle of the street? Just stand there and watch?

i might know them and realize that they deserve it, or realize that its not in my best interest to involve myself in a situation where i might get hurt or intangled into something that isn't my business. if i felt i could make a difference without risk than i might do something, if the person was my friend i would definately do something.


And , pray, how are Anarchists stupid?

anarchy is stupid and anarchists believe in it. i suppose they could smart in other areas.

[Invader Zim]

I'm afraid they are. And there's plenty of evidence to support it, both from the behaviour and the ethics of these systems.

Cite some then, I enjoy a little comedy and this surely will not fail to amuse.



On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Clearly not.


How can socialism feasibly work without being centralised?

It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.



I'm sure parroting some marxist college professor will make me infinitely wiser.

I quite agree, I think you would do somewhat better in grade school; where there are not too many complicated ideas that may colour your black and white perspective on history and politics.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:25 PM
He must be talking about the 1974-79 labour government which fucked up my country. Go on, tell me how it wasn't "real socialism".

Or the one that revived the impoverished and wrecked Churchill economy.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:20 PM
On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Where exactly is this decentralised socialism? How can socialism feasibly work without being centralised?
And how can Capitalism work without a centralised monopoly on force to ensure people pay their dues to the bank or landlord?

Socialism is not a centralised economy, socialism is democratic workers control of production. "Free trade" is not even antithesis to socialism, as co-operation between workers in a federal system would see some sort of trading but without the capacity for exploitation equality is guaranteed. It is the original and true libertarianism.

Capitalism is NOT free trade, it is division of labour end of story.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM

It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.


Claiming that there will be "cooperation" in a socialist community still requires a demonstration of HOW people will cooperate.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 19 2006, 10:49 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 19 2006, 10:49 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 02:25 PM
He must be talking about the 1974-79 labour government which fucked up my country. Go on, tell me how it wasn't "real socialism".

Or the one that revived the impoverished and wrecked Churchill economy. [/b]
Germany, West Germany that is, was back on its feet more quickly than the UK- and this was because the german Social Democrats abandoned much of nationalisations, wage and price controls ect which was a feature of Labor england in the 50s.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Sep 18 2006, 01:08 PM--> (apathy maybe @ Sep 18 2006, 01:08 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
They are "opposites" in this sense:

Shoemaker "A" is the competitor to Shoemaker "B." But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy to both.

The nazis and communists were competitors, not enemies. Its why "fascist" groups always seem to be made up of former members of other socialist groups; why their political base is drawn from the base of other socialist parties; and why in general the socialists are so unable to deal with "fascist" parties.

Who are the enemies? Why, the Right of course, which has always defended freedom and liberty across the world and across the ages...You must be taking the piss correct? Often the same sort of people attracted to fascist groups are the same sort of people who are attracted to socialist groups. Disenfranchised, often poor, often under educated and so on. But that same sort of person is often attracted to fundamentalist religion, is Islam the same as socialism now?

The Right the defender of "freedom and liberty across the world and across the ages..."? You are taking the piss. You have to be. Depending on what you mean by right (classical liberal, (western) conservative, fascist or whatever) you would be wrong on all counts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean "liberal democracies" (such as the USA). They successfully defended freedom and liberty in Chile in 1973 didn't they. Successfully defended it in Hungry in 1956, then again in Czechoslovakia in '68. The Vietnamese loved the freedom they had before the Communists took over, the South Koreans before "democracy" came and so on.

The right have never defended freedom and liberty except when it has suited them, or when it directly impacts on the rich, wealthy and/or powerful.


colonelguppy
the kind of are as they both sacrifice individual liberty for the good of the whole. they do it in completely different ways though.

or atleast thats the intent of both.Glad to see you recognise some difference in style. But I disagree. Socialism is about the individual as much as the collective. [/b]
You have spent half of the response criticising the Right.

A criticism of the Right, of capitalism, is not a defense of socialism.

As a profession, who was the biggest backers of the National Socialists? Elementary school teachers, people who were not known for their ignorance or "disenfranchisement."

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 20 2006, 10:39 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 20 2006, 10:39 AM)
Invader [email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM

It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.


Claiming that there will be "cooperation" in a socialist community still requires a demonstration of HOW people will cooperate. [/b]
Maybe you should try and understand what you are criticising, it's been explained countless times in this place. It could not be said precisely how co-operation would work because it depends on what people find most convenient depending on the circumstances and what they are co-operating on. Different regions are always going to have different industries and natural resources so a region that is responsible mainly for steelworks or something would have to co-operate with other industries in order to get production from them and vice versa. If someone ain't gonna participate then they lose out.

But there's a lot of different ideas about this.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+Sep 20 2006, 11:14 AM--> (Matty_UK @ Sep 20 2006, 11:14 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:39 AM

Invader [email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM

It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.


Claiming that there will be "cooperation" in a socialist community still requires a demonstration of HOW people will cooperate.
Maybe you should try and understand what you are criticising, it's been explained countless times in this place. It could not be said precisely how co-operation would work because it depends on what people find most convenient depending on the circumstances and what they are co-operating on. Different regions are always going to have different industries and natural resources so a region that is responsible mainly for steelworks or something would have to co-operate with other industries in order to get production from them and vice versa. If someone ain't gonna participate then they lose out.

But there's a lot of different ideas about this. [/b]
Given that there is no immediate possibility of a socialist community being established along the lines you would prefer to see, some speculation on your end would certainly be warranted. Why should anyone believe that your system will be superior to capitalism if you are unable to describe its functioning?

After all, the communists in the USSR also claimed to be socialists, and set up systems to "cooperate" which ultimately failed. That most socialists here will deny the USSR et. al. was not socialist is not relevent.

[Invader Zim]

Why speculatively descibe a form of society which has existed in practise to various degrees? To take examples you have the kibbutzim in Israel, the vast collectives of the Spanish civil war and so on.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 20 2006, 11:33 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 20 2006, 11:33 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:39 AM

Invader [email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM

It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.


Claiming that there will be "cooperation" in a socialist community still requires a demonstration of HOW people will cooperate.
Maybe you should try and understand what you are criticising, it's been explained countless times in this place. It could not be said precisely how co-operation would work because it depends on what people find most convenient depending on the circumstances and what they are co-operating on. Different regions are always going to have different industries and natural resources so a region that is responsible mainly for steelworks or something would have to co-operate with other industries in order to get production from them and vice versa. If someone ain't gonna participate then they lose out.

But there's a lot of different ideas about this.
Given that there is no immediate possibility of a socialist community being established along the lines you would prefer to see, some speculation on your end would certainly be warranted. Why should anyone believe that your system will be superior to capitalism if you are unable to describe its functioning?

After all, the communists in the USSR also claimed to be socialists, and set up systems to "cooperate" which ultimately failed. That most socialists here will deny the USSR et. al. was not socialist is not relevent. [/b]
Not NOW, obviously...it depends on a capitalist crises taking place before popular revolution can begin. For me, I think ideology is a real pain in the ass in this respect because a revolution would work best if people just started taking over production themselves because of capitalisms failure to use the full capacity of production which is made more obvious in a crises. It can just be organised from there.

And I'm not able to describe it's functioning exactly because I am not a politician with a plan to impose upon people, all I advocate and predict is ordinary people taking over production for themselves and the best means of organisation would differ from place to place, all I can provide is a rough template. For example things like distributing oil that are only found in certain parts of the world would be organised in a very different way to agriculture that could be left up to the individual in a communal garden of sorts. It's not that I can't describe what I want, it's just that things won't have one definite means of organisation.

[Tungsten]

Invader Zim

Cite some then, I enjoy a little comedy and this surely will not fail to amuse.

so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Oh let's see...wasn't the economy of those dictatorships centrally planned? I guess it was. Wasn't that the source of their power in the first place? Colective ownership is just state ownership writ large. Saying there isn't a state is just semnatics.


It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.
I'm not naive enough to think I can legislate it into existance.

I quite agree, I think you would do somewhat better in grade school;
They preach the same mythology there too.

Why speculatively descibe a form of society which has existed in practise to various degrees? To take examples you have the kibbutzim in Israel, the vast collectives of the Spanish civil war and so on.
And the USSR, which also practiced socialism to a "certain degree". In a laissez fair society, if you want communism, you can have it- start a voluntary commune. No one will stop you unless participation is forced on people.
LeftyHenry

Or the one that revived the impoverished and wrecked Churchill economy.
There's a reason that up until recently, no labour government has ever spent more than one term in office. Guess what it is, by and large.
Matty_UK

And how can Capitalism work without a centralised monopoly on force to ensure people pay their dues to the bank or landlord?
It can't very well. I don't remember saying otherwise.

Socialism is not a centralised economy, socialism is democratic workers control of production.
That doesn't preclude centralisation.

"Free trade" is not even antithesis to socialism, as co-operation between workers in a federal system would see some sort of trading but without the capacity for exploitation equality is guaranteed.
With the dubious definition of exploitation offered by socialists and a controlled economy (to guarantee equality), it practically will be.

It is the original and true libertarianism.
I think liberty in general is the last thing on your mind.

Capitalism is NOT free trade, it is division of labour end of story.
The two aren't necessarily opposed.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 20 2006, 12:49 PM
Why speculatively descibe a form of society which has existed in practise to various degrees? To take examples you have the kibbutzim in Israel, the vast collectives of the Spanish civil war and so on.

The kibbutz requires subsididies from the government of Israel, which in turn gets its funds from taxing capitalist enterprises and wealthy capitalists. Can't use the kibbutz as an example.

Neither the Spanish collectives, which at the very minimum had the backdrop of the urgency of war

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+Sep 20 2006, 12:56 PM--> (Matty_UK @ Sep 20 2006, 12:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:39 AM

Invader [email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM

It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.


Claiming that there will be "cooperation" in a socialist community still requires a demonstration of HOW people will cooperate.
Maybe you should try and understand what you are criticising, it's been explained countless times in this place. It could not be said precisely how co-operation would work because it depends on what people find most convenient depending on the circumstances and what they are co-operating on. Different regions are always going to have different industries and natural resources so a region that is responsible mainly for steelworks or something would have to co-operate with other industries in order to get production from them and vice versa. If someone ain't gonna participate then they lose out.

But there's a lot of different ideas about this.
Given that there is no immediate possibility of a socialist community being established along the lines you would prefer to see, some speculation on your end would certainly be warranted. Why should anyone believe that your system will be superior to capitalism if you are unable to describe its functioning?

After all, the communists in the USSR also claimed to be socialists, and set up systems to "cooperate" which ultimately failed. That most socialists here will deny the USSR et. al. was not socialist is not relevent.
Not NOW, obviously...it depends on a capitalist crises taking place before popular revolution can begin. For me, I think ideology is a real pain in the ass in this respect because a revolution would work best if people just started taking over production themselves because of capitalisms failure to use the full capacity of production which is made more obvious in a crises. It can just be organised from there.

And I'm not able to describe it's functioning exactly because I am not a politician with a plan to impose upon people, all I advocate and predict is ordinary people taking over production for themselves and the best means of organisation would differ from place to place, all I can provide is a rough template. For example things like distributing oil that are only found in certain parts of the world would be organised in a very different way to agriculture that could be left up to the individual in a communal garden of sorts. It's not that I can't describe what I want, it's just that things won't have one definite means of organisation. [/b]
Okay. So how might the distribution of oil be organised? What about the distribution of agriculture (and would that distribution differ for agricultural products which are available locally versus agricultural products which would have to come from far away?).

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:59 PM

Socialism is not a centralised economy, socialism is democratic workers control of production.
That doesn't preclude centralisation.


"Free trade" is not even antithesis to socialism, as co-operation between workers in a federal system would see some sort of trading but without the capacity for exploitation equality is guaranteed.
With the dubious definition of exploitation offered by socialists and a controlled economy (to guarantee equality), it practically will be.

It is the original and true libertarianism.
I think liberty in general is the last thing on your mind.

Capitalism is NOT free trade, it is division of labour end of story.
The two aren't necessarily opposed.
"That doesn't preclude centralisation."

Well actually it does because to be centralised means a small group of people hold power over the economy; but if that is the case then we are not truly running our own affairs.

"With the dubious definition of exploitation offered by socialists and a controlled economy (to guarantee equality), it practically will be. "

So taking all profit made by the workers and giving them back a tiny wage enough to keep them alive so they can work for you is not exploitation? <_<

And how is what I&#39;m advocating a "controlled economy?" Why can an economy not be free without being market based?

I think liberty in general is the last thing on your mind.

Oh that&#39;s right I want a daddy government to look after my every need and tell me what to do. Hatred of freedom-that&#39;s what my adolesence full of rebellion and confrontations with authority was all about, now I know why I became an anarchist.

The two aren&#39;t necessarily opposed.

Depends how you define a "free" market. For it to be a fair competition which I would consider a free market everyone would have to have equal access to resources and trade what they alone produce; without a state to protect them an individual could never seize control of entire factories so a return of capitalism would be impossible. This would be quite good as it ensures individual responsibility but it could only ever be achieved after a communist revolution.

But my point is a free market is not free when a private elite of suits owns EVERYTHING. Some idiot here said we could set up a hippy commune if we want-uuuh no because ALL land is owned by the bourgoisie nowadays.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 20 2006, 03:57 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 20 2006, 03:57 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:39 AM

Invader [email protected] 19 2006, 10:31 PM

It is called cooperation, I am sure that even you can fathom such a concept.


Claiming that there will be "cooperation" in a socialist community still requires a demonstration of HOW people will cooperate.
Maybe you should try and understand what you are criticising, it&#39;s been explained countless times in this place. It could not be said precisely how co-operation would work because it depends on what people find most convenient depending on the circumstances and what they are co-operating on. Different regions are always going to have different industries and natural resources so a region that is responsible mainly for steelworks or something would have to co-operate with other industries in order to get production from them and vice versa. If someone ain&#39;t gonna participate then they lose out.

But there&#39;s a lot of different ideas about this.
Given that there is no immediate possibility of a socialist community being established along the lines you would prefer to see, some speculation on your end would certainly be warranted. Why should anyone believe that your system will be superior to capitalism if you are unable to describe its functioning?

After all, the communists in the USSR also claimed to be socialists, and set up systems to "cooperate" which ultimately failed. That most socialists here will deny the USSR et. al. was not socialist is not relevent.
Not NOW, obviously...it depends on a capitalist crises taking place before popular revolution can begin. For me, I think ideology is a real pain in the ass in this respect because a revolution would work best if people just started taking over production themselves because of capitalisms failure to use the full capacity of production which is made more obvious in a crises. It can just be organised from there.

And I&#39;m not able to describe it&#39;s functioning exactly because I am not a politician with a plan to impose upon people, all I advocate and predict is ordinary people taking over production for themselves and the best means of organisation would differ from place to place, all I can provide is a rough template. For example things like distributing oil that are only found in certain parts of the world would be organised in a very different way to agriculture that could be left up to the individual in a communal garden of sorts. It&#39;s not that I can&#39;t describe what I want, it&#39;s just that things won&#39;t have one definite means of organisation.
Okay. So how might the distribution of oil be organised? What about the distribution of agriculture (and would that distribution differ for agricultural products which are available locally versus agricultural products which would have to come from far away?). [/b]
Well, most likely an alternative would be found sooner outside of capitalism but hypothetically, communities that require oil could call a federal meeting of whoever wants to send a representative (representatives would be chosen in an open council of their small community and given a chosen list of things needed) and then all the areas that require oil from whatever place would hold a large open meeting with the oil workers and would negotiate something to trade with them from their region. If a region was not getting enough resources-you "libertarian" cappies will agree with this-then most likely people across the globe would send charity to help them, this happens even under capitalism when people are so concerned about their personal finances.

Agriculturally it&#39;s difficult to say cos it depends on what people want and depends on the area. If it&#39;s an infertile area then people either wouldn&#39;t live there or would trade in a similar way to the above, and that&#39;s what they&#39;d do if they want bananas but live in Europe. Or they could just use the land freely to farm their own food (this was done until quite recently in fact, land in UK used to be owned by no-one and everyone until the nobility started putting up fences around the 1500s) for themselves if they so wish, by using an allotment or garden. Or they could have a communally owned farm where food could be mass-produced on a large scale for trade and people would decide in local councils on how to keep these staffed.

THAT is real fucking libertarianism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:13 PM
Well, most likely an alternative would be found sooner outside of capitalism but hypothetically, communities that require oil could call a federal meeting of whoever wants to send a representative (representatives would be chosen in an open council of their small community and given a chosen list of things needed) and then all the areas that require oil from whatever place would hold a large open meeting with the oil workers and would negotiate something to trade with them from their region. If a region was not getting enough resources-you "libertarian" cappies will agree with this-then most likely people across the globe would send charity to help them, this happens even under capitalism when people are so concerned about their personal finances.

Agriculturally it&#39;s difficult to say cos it depends on what people want and depends on the area. If it&#39;s an infertile area then people either wouldn&#39;t live there or would trade in a similar way to the above, and that&#39;s what they&#39;d do if they want bananas but live in Europe. Or they could just use the land freely to farm their own food (this was done until quite recently in fact, land in UK used to be owned by no-one and everyone until the nobility started putting up fences around the 1500s) for themselves if they so wish, by using an allotment or garden. Or they could have a communally owned farm where food could be mass-produced on a large scale for trade and people would decide in local councils on how to keep these staffed.

THAT is real fucking libertarianism.
So, the local council determines what people, locally, need. Naturally there will need to be a method for the council to be informed (probably questionaires sent to each household; How many gallons of heating oil will you need this winter? How many nails? How many oranges? How many towels? How many nails? ect ect). This would seem to be a very large undertaking for a household, never mind the community which has to then organise it all, and send it to the federal meeting.

So now at that federal meeting, the rep from that community has to present the needs of his community to the council at large. And they are made up of people asking for things themselves. They then all meet with the workers who provide oil, who provide nails, who provide the oranges, ect ect with their request. This would seem to be an even larger undertaking.

Then a negotiation. Negotiation implies that a deal does not neccessarily have to take place. So if the town cannot strike a deal with the orange workers, no OJ for the year?

Moreover, what about intermediary goods? Like the producers who provide goods and services to people who in turn provide final goods and services to ther people (like the folks who make sparkplugs, or fashion iron ore into steel?)

seems like an incredibly complex set of machinery has been created here.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 20 2006, 04:32 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 20 2006, 04:32 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 04:13 PM
Well, most likely an alternative would be found sooner outside of capitalism but hypothetically, communities that require oil could call a federal meeting of whoever wants to send a representative (representatives would be chosen in an open council of their small community and given a chosen list of things needed) and then all the areas that require oil from whatever place would hold a large open meeting with the oil workers and would negotiate something to trade with them from their region. If a region was not getting enough resources-you "libertarian" cappies will agree with this-then most likely people across the globe would send charity to help them, this happens even under capitalism when people are so concerned about their personal finances.

Agriculturally it&#39;s difficult to say cos it depends on what people want and depends on the area. If it&#39;s an infertile area then people either wouldn&#39;t live there or would trade in a similar way to the above, and that&#39;s what they&#39;d do if they want bananas but live in Europe. Or they could just use the land freely to farm their own food (this was done until quite recently in fact, land in UK used to be owned by no-one and everyone until the nobility started putting up fences around the 1500s) for themselves if they so wish, by using an allotment or garden. Or they could have a communally owned farm where food could be mass-produced on a large scale for trade and people would decide in local councils on how to keep these staffed.

THAT is real fucking libertarianism.
So, the local council determines what people, locally, need. Naturally there will need to be a method for the council to be informed (probably questionaires sent to each household; How many gallons of heating oil will you need this winter? How many nails? How many oranges? How many towels? How many nails? ect ect). This would seem to be a very large undertaking for a household, never mind the community which has to then organise it all, and send it to the federal meeting.

So now at that federal meeting, the rep from that community has to present the needs of his community to the council at large. And they are made up of people asking for things themselves. They then all meet with the workers who provide oil, who provide nails, who provide the oranges, ect ect with their request. This would seem to be an even larger undertaking.

Then a negotiation. Negotiation implies that a deal does not neccessarily have to take place. So if the town cannot strike a deal with the orange workers, no OJ for the year?

Moreover, what about intermediary goods? Like the producers who provide goods and services to people who in turn provide final goods and services to ther people (like the folks who make sparkplugs, or fashion iron ore into steel?)

seems like an incredibly complex set of machinery has been created here. [/b]
The council has no permanent members with an ongoing responsibility to provide for everyone; rather the councils form out of alliances between households out of common interest and it is not so big a task as generally what is needed would be fairly consistent every year; it won&#39;t be too different to keeping shop shelves full. People can be in charge themselves of ensuring they get what they need by making their voices heard in a council; but membership of a council is not compulsory it&#39;s just useful. If you wanted you could farm your own food and live a primitive life and no-one would bother you.

It&#39;s not really complex, in fact it&#39;s far more simple than capitalism; there isn&#39;t any fixed machinery of government, it just depends on people co-operating in various ways. There is no fixed "federal council" it&#39;s just something that people will probably form on occasion in order to co-operate on a wider area. It&#39;s no more complicated than talking to people.

And as for negotiations....ok so the town can&#39;t strike a deal with the orange workers, well I don&#39;t know what will happen and it&#39;s entirely their responsibility to find a solution. If someone really wants orange juice then they could find a new industry to work in. But bear in mind that negotiations will be a lot easier outside of capitalism as there is no benefit in keeping goods that aren&#39;t useful so people will be more willing to give away surpluses for free. I and probably you would do this in real life; buy too much food and you give the surplus away to a friend.

Intermediary goods, if they&#39;re needed to produce final goods then the communities that benefit from whatever factory needs intermediary goods would get hold of the resources they need through making deals for the goods or the resources needed to build them, receiving charity, or building them themselves if they have the natural resources needed already. Although I reckon that it would develop to a point where small industry is everywhere and communities become more autonomous.

But you must bear in mind that I can only suggest how people may deal with problems and I&#39;m not providing a solid blueprint for people to follow; when people themselves have control over what is produced it gives them more motivation to think of innovative solutions because they aren&#39;t "alienated."

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:54 PM
The council has no permanent members with an ongoing responsibility to provide for everyone; rather the councils form out of alliances between households out of common interest and it is not so big a task as generally what is needed would be fairly consistent every year; it won&#39;t be too different to keeping shop shelves full. People can be in charge themselves of ensuring they get what they need by making their voices heard in a council; but membership of a council is not compulsory it&#39;s just useful. If you wanted you could farm your own food and live a primitive life and no-one would bother you.

It&#39;s not really complex, in fact it&#39;s far more simple than capitalism; there isn&#39;t any fixed machinery of government, it just depends on people co-operating in various ways. There is no fixed "federal council" it&#39;s just something that people will probably form on occasion in order to co-operate on a wider area. It&#39;s no more complicated than talking to people.

And as for negotiations....ok so the town can&#39;t strike a deal with the orange workers, well I don&#39;t know what will happen and it&#39;s entirely their responsibility to find a solution. If someone really wants orange juice then they could find a new industry to work in. But bear in mind that negotiations will be a lot easier outside of capitalism as there is no benefit in keeping goods that aren&#39;t useful so people will be more willing to give away surpluses for free. I and probably you would do this in real life; buy too much food and you give the surplus away to a friend.

Intermediary goods, if they&#39;re needed to produce final goods then the communities that benefit from whatever factory needs intermediary goods would get hold of the resources they need through making deals for the goods or the resources needed to build them, receiving charity, or building them themselves if they have the natural resources needed already. Although I reckon that it would develop to a point where small industry is everywhere and communities become more autonomous.

But you must bear in mind that I can only suggest how people may deal with problems and I&#39;m not providing a solid blueprint for people to follow; when people themselves have control over what is produced it gives them more motivation to think of innovative solutions because they aren&#39;t "alienated."
It would seem that your system relies upon:

1. People purchasing the same things year after year. But do people not age? Are born? Die? Do not disasters strike (fire, floods, hurricanes)?

2. If people are not able to get wanted items, basically they are told to make it themselves. Not particularly a compassionate, or an efficient way of distributing resources.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 20 2006, 07:02 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 20 2006, 07:02 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 05:54 PM
The council has no permanent members with an ongoing responsibility to provide for everyone; rather the councils form out of alliances between households out of common interest and it is not so big a task as generally what is needed would be fairly consistent every year; it won&#39;t be too different to keeping shop shelves full. People can be in charge themselves of ensuring they get what they need by making their voices heard in a council; but membership of a council is not compulsory it&#39;s just useful. If you wanted you could farm your own food and live a primitive life and no-one would bother you.

It&#39;s not really complex, in fact it&#39;s far more simple than capitalism; there isn&#39;t any fixed machinery of government, it just depends on people co-operating in various ways. There is no fixed "federal council" it&#39;s just something that people will probably form on occasion in order to co-operate on a wider area. It&#39;s no more complicated than talking to people.

And as for negotiations....ok so the town can&#39;t strike a deal with the orange workers, well I don&#39;t know what will happen and it&#39;s entirely their responsibility to find a solution. If someone really wants orange juice then they could find a new industry to work in. But bear in mind that negotiations will be a lot easier outside of capitalism as there is no benefit in keeping goods that aren&#39;t useful so people will be more willing to give away surpluses for free. I and probably you would do this in real life; buy too much food and you give the surplus away to a friend.

Intermediary goods, if they&#39;re needed to produce final goods then the communities that benefit from whatever factory needs intermediary goods would get hold of the resources they need through making deals for the goods or the resources needed to build them, receiving charity, or building them themselves if they have the natural resources needed already. Although I reckon that it would develop to a point where small industry is everywhere and communities become more autonomous.

But you must bear in mind that I can only suggest how people may deal with problems and I&#39;m not providing a solid blueprint for people to follow; when people themselves have control over what is produced it gives them more motivation to think of innovative solutions because they aren&#39;t "alienated."
It would seem that your system relies upon:

1. People purchasing the same things year after year. But do people not age? Are born? Die? Do not disasters strike (fire, floods, hurricanes)?

2. If people are not able to get wanted items, basically they are told to make it themselves. Not particularly a compassionate, or an efficient way of distributing resources. [/b]
How does it rely on the same things year after year? I just said it isn&#39;t really that complicated a system and when it&#39;s noticed that some sort of change is required it&#39;s not a lot to get new things. People get what they need.

You say IF people are not able to get unwanted items.....but they probably will be able to. Under capitalism a billion or so people can&#39;t get a healthy diet so they starve; under anarchism people will have access to land and the means of production so they have the power to do something about the lack of orange juice or whatnot; and people aren&#39;t told to deal with it themselves because nobody is telling them what to do. They effectively do for themselves what a government would usually do for them.

[Tungsten]

Matty_UK

Well actually it does because to be centralised means a small group of people hold power over the economy; but if that is the case then we are not truly running our own affairs.
Centralisation doesn&#39;t always mean a small group. It&#39;s no good if everyone holds power over the economy (not in the way you want them to). You won&#39;t be in control of your own affairs if your affairs are controlled democratically.

So taking all profit made by the workers and giving them back
No, they&#39;re not taking something from them and then giving them "back" a little but of that something. The profit is not made until the product is sold- it&#39;s a separate mechanism from production which the worker has no say in. If I buy your car than then sell it on to someone for a higher price than I bought it, am I exploiting you? No.

And how is what I&#39;m advocating a "controlled economy?" Why can an economy not be free without being market based.
Because the market is (should I say should be) free. You can&#39;t have a system where prices are controlled legally by an uninvolved authority and then call it free.

Oh that&#39;s right I want a daddy government to look after my every need and tell me what to do.
You say "no" while pratically everything you advocate in this thread says "yes".

Depends how you define a "free" market.
Free as in, unregulated. You know, real freedom.

For it to be a fair competition which I would consider a free market everyone would have to have equal access to resources and trade what they alone produce;
What resources?

without a state to protect them an individual could never seize control of entire factories so a return of capitalism would be impossible.
That would become a problem if they began to build their own. You couldn&#39;t call that seizure.

This would be quite good as it ensures individual responsibility but it could only ever be achieved after a communist revolution.
How did we jump from owning factories to individual responsibility? How is the latter &#39;ensured&#39;?

But my point is a free market is not free when a private elite of suits owns EVERYTHING.
They don&#39;t. No "suit" owned my house last time I checked, nor anyone else&#39;s in my street.

Some idiot here said we could set up a hippy commune if we want-uuuh no because ALL land is owned by the bourgoisie nowadays.
Your dishonesty is truly legendary.

[pastradamus]

They Are complete opposites to one another.

FACISM is REACTIONARY to COMMUNISM

Facism Dosent exist without a communist presence. As we see with the classic example of Hitler. The Nazi&#39;s were elected with the banning of the one of the larger parties (COMMUNISTS) and won themselves and election by presenting the enemy as being a threat to society.

But if we observe Capitalism. Namely US policy.

when we compare it to nazism.
NAZISM:

1) Strong Nationalism
2)Cult of the leader
3)Anti-Democratic
4)Anti-Communist
5)Militaristic

CAPITALISM:

1)Nationalism - YES
2)Cult of the leader - YES, President BUSH is a huge celebrity
3)Anti-Democratic - FLORIDA, WATERGATE ANYBODY?&#33;?
4)Anti-Communist - Cold WAR, Exploting the crap outta the working class, etc..
5)Militaristic- DUH&#33;

[Tungsten]

pastradamus

FACISM is REACTIONARY to COMMUNISM
Isn&#39;t communism reactionary to fascism? Isn&#39;t a reaction against bullshit a desirable thing?

The Nazi&#39;s were elected with the banning of the one of the larger parties (COMMUNISTS) and won themselves and election by presenting the enemy as being a threat to society.
Wouldn&#39;t the communists have done the same?

But if we observe Capitalism. Namely US policy.
Not anymore.

CAPITALISM:

1)Nationalism - YES
Anyone can be nationalistic regardless of their political views.

2)Cult of the leader - YES, President BUSH is a huge celebrity
Says the man with a Che Guevara avatar. I don&#39;t follow any leader.

3)Anti-Democratic - FLORIDA, WATERGATE ANYBODY?&#33;?
Well, yes I&#39;m anti-democratic in that democracy should only be used for party elections.

4)Anti-Communist - Cold WAR, Exploting the crap outta the working class, etc..
I believe there are quite a few social democrats who are also anti-communist.

5)Militaristic- DUH&#33;
Like nationalism, unimportant and inessential. It&#39;s wonder "racism" and "sexism" wasn&#39;t here too.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:28 AM
They Are complete opposites to one another.

FACISM is REACTIONARY to COMMUNISM

Facism Dosent exist without a communist presence. As we see with the classic example of Hitler. The Nazi&#39;s were elected with the banning of the one of the larger parties (COMMUNISTS) and won themselves and election by presenting the enemy as being a threat to society.

But if we observe Capitalism. Namely US policy.

when we compare it to nazism.
NAZISM:

1) Strong Nationalism
2)Cult of the leader
3)Anti-Democratic
4)Anti-Communist
5)Militaristic

CAPITALISM:

1)Nationalism - YES
2)Cult of the leader - YES, President BUSH is a huge celebrity
3)Anti-Democratic - FLORIDA, WATERGATE ANYBODY?&#33;?
4)Anti-Communist - Cold WAR, Exploting the crap outta the working class, etc..
5)Militaristic- DUH&#33;
It is true that fascism is a reaction to communism (which is why communism is not guilt free when it comes to fascism).


The Communists, of course, would have banned the nazis had they won.

The comparisons:

Nationalism- Its fairly hard to deny that the biggest nationalists of the 20th century were communists (Mao, Ho, and castro. Moreover folks like Milosevic was a nationalist and of course an ex-communist. It is extremely difficult to call for a "nationalisation" without appealing to nationalism). capitalists are of course condemned by the Left for their INTERNATIONALISM. Socialism has never been a rational ideology.

Cult of the leader- naturally, such a development occurred in communism and was seen in socialism.

Anti-democratic- The nazis in fact always argued they were &#39;democratic." Like communists and other socialists, they railed against "bourgeoise democracy," or "class democracy."

Anti-communist- the nazis of course were very easily able to work with the reds throughout the 20s. naturally the alliance of &#39;39 was viewed by nazis as old brothers back to the fold (Ribbentropp). Mussolini was the second country after Laborite UK to recognise the USSR. Capitalism is quite anti-communist since the communist proposes to kill the capitalist. The nazi only promises to make the capitalist his slave.

Millitaristic- a standard staple of socialism, both national and international. It has to do with the constant quarrels within socialism as to how best defend a socialist state, and to advance its cause.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The Communists, of course, would have banned the nazis had they won.

Considering what they accomplished, I think that anybody interested in saving 10 million Jews from slavery and murder, would have banned fascism had they been able.


Nationalism- Its fairly hard to deny that the biggest nationalists of the 20th century were communists (Mao, Ho, and castro. Moreover folks like Milosevic was a nationalist and of course an ex-communist. It is extremely difficult to call for a "nationalisation" without appealing to nationalism).

There&#39;s a big fuck difference between national liberation and national chauvinism. It has to do with materialism. You wouldn&#39;t understand.


capitalists are of course condemned by the Left for their INTERNATIONALISM.

No they&#39;re not.
They&#39;re condemned for oppressing other nations (yes, entire nations). This capitalist control and influence of another foreign country is sometimes called "globalization". This has nothing to do with internationalism.


Socialism has never been a rational ideology.

It&#39;s funny, because you just made various rational gaffes.


Cult of the leader- naturally, such a development occurred in communism and was seen in socialism.

Cult worship occured in backwards socialist societies just as much as it happened in any other backwards societies. By any objective measure, it has nothing to do with the economic paradigm of socialism.


Anti-democratic- The nazis in fact always argued they were &#39;democratic." Like communists and other socialists, they railed against "bourgeoise democracy," or "class democracy."

No they didn&#39;t.


Anti-communist- the nazis of course were very easily able to work with the reds throughout the 20s. naturally the alliance of &#39;39 was viewed by nazis as old brothers back to the fold (Ribbentropp). Mussolini was the second country after Laborite UK to recognise the USSR. Capitalism is quite anti-communist since the communist proposes to kill the capitalist. The nazi only promises to make the capitalist his slave.

This makes no sense whatsoever. I&#39;m a little drunk, but fairly sure that you&#39;re being very inconsistent and incoherent.


Millitaristic- a standard staple of socialism, both national and international. It has to do with the constant quarrels within socialism as to how best defend a socialist state, and to advance its cause.

It has nothing to do with that&#33;
It has to do with the need of socialist states to be aggressively protective. There&#39;s no possible way to negate the fact that the US was a tremendous military threat to any socialist society of the twentieth century to which you are referring.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:09 PM
Matty_UK

Well actually it does because to be centralised means a small group of people hold power over the economy; but if that is the case then we are not truly running our own affairs.

Centralisation doesn&#39;t always mean a small group. It&#39;s no good if everyone holds power over the economy (not in the way you want them to). You won&#39;t be in control of your own affairs if your affairs are controlled democratically.

So taking all profit made by the workers and giving them back
No, they&#39;re not taking something from them and then giving them "back" a little but of that something. The profit is not made until the product is sold- it&#39;s a separate mechanism from production which the worker has no say in. If I buy your car than then sell it on to someone for a higher price than I bought it, am I exploiting you? No.

And how is what I&#39;m advocating a "controlled economy?" Why can an economy not be free without being market based.
Because the market is (should I say should be) free. You can&#39;t have a system where prices are controlled legally by an uninvolved authority and then call it free.

Oh that&#39;s right I want a daddy government to look after my every need and tell me what to do.
You say "no" while pratically everything you advocate in this thread says "yes".

Depends how you define a "free" market.
Free as in, unregulated. You know, real freedom.

For it to be a fair competition which I would consider a free market everyone would have to have equal access to resources and trade what they alone produce;
What resources?

without a state to protect them an individual could never seize control of entire factories so a return of capitalism would be impossible.
That would become a problem if they began to build their own. You couldn&#39;t call that seizure.

This would be quite good as it ensures individual responsibility but it could only ever be achieved after a communist revolution.
How did we jump from owning factories to individual responsibility? How is the latter &#39;ensured&#39;?

But my point is a free market is not free when a private elite of suits owns EVERYTHING.
They don&#39;t. No "suit" owned my house last time I checked, nor anyone else&#39;s in my street.

Some idiot here said we could set up a hippy commune if we want-uuuh no because ALL land is owned by the bourgoisie nowadays.
Your dishonesty is truly legendary.

Centralisation doesn&#39;t always mean a small group. It&#39;s no good if everyone holds power over the economy (not in the way you want them to). You won&#39;t be in control of your own affairs if your affairs are controlled democratically.

So a situation with local publically controlled industries trading and making deals with each other is centralism, while an international company with one person owning a great deal of the world&#39;s resources isn&#39;t? :lol: You&#39;re confused by your own propaganda, you think that only an elite selling things to the mass is a free economy-like fuck it is and you would know it if you didn&#39;t let semantics confuse you.

I won&#39;t be in control of my own affairs meaning what? Which affairs and how will they be changed by democratic control over production?

Humans are social animals and all our actions depend on co-operation; for example at work I have to negotiate with my boss when I can take a holiday in order to avoid it being at a bad time. You can choose a job, providing there isn&#39;t already too many people doing it. I can&#39;t just choose to quit a job when I feel like because chances are I&#39;m dependant on it, and plus if I quit jobs regularly or for no reason it looks bad on my CV and getting a new job is made harder. I could choose to work more hours for more pay but it depends if those hours are on offer. You can choose what to buy.

Under libertarian socialism you would negotiate holidays, negotiate job allocation, negotiate how often to work, and choose what products you want.

So how are you any more in charge of your affairs under capitalism? The only difference is under capitalism everything is decided for you by the bourgeoisie class based on what is convenient for them and then you look out for what&#39;s best for you; under socialism you will still be as in charge of your affairs but you organise your affairs through direct discussion with other human beings rather than a detached bureaucratic communication witht he bourgeoisie through CVs, application forms, and the like.

Your "individualism" is a myth. Humans will always have to co-operate and humans will also always be looking out for themselves.


No, they&#39;re not taking something from them and then giving them "back" a little but of that something. The profit is not made until the product is sold- it&#39;s a separate mechanism from production which the worker has no say in. If I buy your car than then sell it on to someone for a higher price than I bought it, am I exploiting you? No.

Well, duh, that&#39;s exactly what we&#39;re trying to change.

And considering the workers made what the capitalists are taking their profit from then yes they are getting their product stolen.

And it&#39;s completely different to buying a car from me and selling it at a higher price, cos I would have a choice in selling the car. The worker does not choose to give you what he produces; the bourgeois state ensures that he must or he gets arrested for "theft." He does not negotiate a price with you.

Your view of economics is so amazingly convoluted it boggles the mind.


Because the market is (should I say should be) free. You can&#39;t have a system where prices are controlled legally by an uninvolved authority and then call it free.

Uhhm exactly I&#39;m not advocating control of prices by an uninvolved authority. I&#39;m an anarchist, I advocate free trade between democratically organised industries, except MUTUAL AID so there is no exploitation which ensures relative equality. No trade is free unless it is based on mutual aid, period.


You say "no" while pratically everything you advocate in this thread says "yes".

I&#39;ve been advocating co-operation and abolition of the state throughout. So how am I asking for a state to look after me again?


Free as in, unregulated. You know, real freedom.

Where have I advocated regulation?
It&#39;s obvious you care about no-one but the bourgeoisie. You are completely unable to see that violent regulation is required to defend bourgeois interests. Your sig even states this, or at least it used to, when it said how looting can only be stopped with force. We want to destroy that barrier, loot, and then organise amongst ourselves to create a new society. That is removal of regulation and if you continue to say otherwise then it&#39;s clear you aren&#39;t worth debating with. You are narrow minded and will only defend the class interests of the bourgeois rather than looking what is good for humanity as a whole.


What resources?

What do you think? Anything necassary to produce things.


That would become a problem if they began to build their own. You couldn&#39;t call that seizure.

How could they single handedly build and run a factory? And why would anyone work for them when they can get better conditions elsewhere? They would have to set up a very small factory to make things only for themselves, which is a good thing and the ideal free market would have everyone being their own mini-industry. A non-capitalist free market.


How did we jump from owning factories to individual responsibility? How is the latter &#39;ensured&#39;?

I think my above response can let you work out the rest of this yourself.


They don&#39;t. No "suit" owned my house last time I checked, nor anyone else&#39;s in my street.

Well my parents are mid-late 40s and still paying their mortgage. The bank owns their house and they aren&#39;t particularly poor-mams a librarian and dad&#39;s a secondary school teacher-and all my friends still have parents paying off their mortgage and debt so if you actually own your house you must be either very old or very rich.


Your dishonesty is truly legendary.

I might be wrong about all land being owned by them but I genuinely don&#39;t know of anywhere near where I live that doesn&#39;t belong to a company, The Duke of Northumberland, or smaller landlord. And even if I could find somewhere virtually all resources needed for food and building stuff are privately owned so I&#39;d have to buy them off the bourgeois. Living outside of capitalism without breaking the law is impossible and you know it.

[pastradamus]

Isn&#39;t communism reactionary to fascism? Isn&#39;t a reaction against bullshit a desirable thing?

Communism came about as a consequence of Industrialisation and was theroetically built over the years. Facism is reactionary to communism. When facism first came about in the early 1900&#39;s it was as a reaction to communism namely Italy, eg mussolini & the killing of matteoiti. It is a countermeasure used by the bourgeois.

Yes Its probably true to say the communists would also have banned the nazis. But what I was comparing was US policy as opposed to your more democratic policy.


Anyone can be nationalistic regardless of their political views.

But applying it politically as policy is what I was talking about.


Says the man with a Che Guevara avatar. I don&#39;t follow any leader......What kind of imput was that? I simply admire che for his views & what he did.


I believe there are quite a few social democrats who are also anti-communist. Social democrats? HAHA&#33; Such as Tony Blair?


Like nationalism, unimportant and inessential. It&#39;s wonder "racism" and "sexism" wasn&#39;t here too.

But still an element of both Nazism & US foreign policy.What I was trying to do was factor in on the simularities between the Bush regime&#39;s policies & that of the nazi party.

[Tungsten]

Matty_UK

So a situation with local publically controlled industries
trading and making deals with each other is centralism, while an international company with one person owning a great deal of the world&#39;s resources isn&#39;t? You&#39;re confused by your own propaganda,
There&#39;s no such thing as a publicly controlled industry and won&#39;t ever be. Everyone can&#39;t control a particular industry, as there would be too much of a conflict of interest between individual members of the public.

You&#39;re blinded by your own propaganda. you think that only an elite selling things to the mass is a free economy-
Freedom depends on who&#39;s doing selling and not the restrictions in place? I think you&#39;re blinded by your own propaganda.

I won&#39;t be in control of my own affairs meaning what?
What you buy and sell will be decided for you and who you can buy and sell off.

Which affairs and how will they be changed by democratic control over production?
If it&#39;s unlimited, pretty much anything. Do you think democratic control is going to end at the factory gates?

Humans are social animals and all our actions depend on co-operation; for example at work I have to negotiate with my boss when I can take a holiday in order to avoid it being at a bad time. You can choose a job, providing there isn&#39;t already too many people doing it. I can&#39;t just choose to quit a job when I feel like because chances are I&#39;m dependant on it, and plus if I quit jobs regularly or for no reason it looks bad on my CV and getting a new job is made harder.
Does the fact that you can&#39;t get away with doing things that are detrimental to your welfare bug you?

Under libertarian socialism you would negotiate holidays, negotiate job allocation, negotiate how often to work, and choose what products you want.
How&#39;s that going to work in practice? I can see the vast majority of the population negotiating to not work at all and demand everything.

So how are you any more in charge of your affairs under capitalism? The only difference is under capitalism everything is decided for you by the bourgeoisie class
No, what I do is decided by me. If I want something, I work and save money for it, knowing that the workers who produce that something will need paying for their efforts.

based on what is convenient for them and then you look out for what&#39;s best for you;
Everyone&#39;s like that. Don&#39;t you do convenient for yourself and then worry about what others are doing?

under socialism you will still be as in charge of your affairs but you organise your affairs through direct discussion with other human beings
Democratically? Do you think the people you&#39;re having these discussions will want what&#39;s in their best interest or yours?

Well, duh, that&#39;s exactly what we&#39;re trying to change.
That&#39;s the problem. It&#39;s like me selling you a car and then dictating when you may and may not drive it. What you do after the sale is none of my business.

And considering the workers made what the capitalists are taking their profit from then yes they are getting their product stolen.
There isn&#39;t any profit made until the product is sold, plus they&#39;re working voluntarily. Therefore, nothing is being stolen.

And it&#39;s completely different to buying a car from me and selling it at a higher price, cos I would have a choice in selling the car. The worker does not choose to give you what he produces;
Yes he does. He sells his labour for a price, and therefore the products of that labour too.

I&#39;ve been advocating co-operation and abolition of the state throughout. So how am I asking for a state to look after me again?
Any idea how this society of your is going to run without a state?

Where have I advocated regulation?
About two paragraphs ago.

"No trade is free unless it is based on mutual aid, period."
Who&#39;s going to be ensuring every transaction that takes places is &#39;based on mutual aid&#39;? Even a democratically elected body is an authority (and therefore functions as a state).

It&#39;s obvious you care about no-one but the bourgeoisie. You are completely unable to see that violent regulation is required to defend bourgeois interests.
Well, yes, I consider violent regulation as a deterrent to robbery to be a good thing, just as with murder and rape. I&#39;m sure it&#39;s not just the bourgeios who are thankful for it.

Your sig even states this, or at least it used to, when it said how looting can only be stopped with force. We want to destroy that barrier, loot, and then organise amongst ourselves to create a new society.
We? It&#39;s highly unlikely everyone will agree to what you consider to be an ideal society, which will inevitably lead to some people being forced into it if it&#39;s put into practice and represent an intiation of force against the individual.

That is removal of regulation and if you continue to say otherwise then it&#39;s clear you aren&#39;t worth debating with.
Repealing rape laws is also removal of regulation, and rape is aslo a phenomenon of the same order as looting.

You are narrow minded and will only defend the class interests of the bourgeois rather than looking what is good for humanity as a whole.
Legalising plunder isn&#39;t in the interests of anyone, rich or poor. Go on, tell me how I, a worker, having my property looted and handed to someone less fortunate than myself is going to benefit me or "humanity as a whole". It&#39;s going to benefit the prick it&#39;s given to and no one else.

What do you think? Anything necassary to produce things.
Do you have any idea what a vague mass of things that definition encompasses?

How could they single handedly build and run a factory?
The same way as every other factory started.

And why would anyone work for them when they can get better conditions elsewhere?
Who&#39;s guaranteeing they;ll find better conditions elsewhere?

I think my above response can let you work out the rest of this yourself.
It doesn&#39;t. As with with most ideologies, the devil is in the details and the problem with yours is the devils are large and prolific. You haven&#39;t really explained anything.

Well my parents are mid-late 40s and still paying their mortgage. The bank owns their house and they aren&#39;t particularly poor-mams a librarian and dad&#39;s a secondary school teacher-and all my friends still have parents paying off their mortgage and debt so if you actually own your house you must be either very old or very rich.
Still living with parents (early 70&#39;s). No point getting saddled with debt.

Living outside of capitalism without breaking the law is impossible and you know it.
You&#39;re not living in laissez fair capitalism. You&#39;re living in some bastardised, semi-socialist, authoritarian crazy quilt of a system.

[red team]

Originally posted by Tungsten+--> (Tungsten)No, they&#39;re not taking something from them and then giving them "back" a little but of that something. The profit is not made until the product is sold- it&#39;s a separate mechanism from production which the worker has no say in. If I buy your car than then sell it on to someone for a higher price than I bought it, am I exploiting you? No.[/b]

This is a really dishonest statement. It is simply a strawman in which you compare commodity speculation with the exploitation of labour. Despite that, I&#39;ll rip it to shreds with simple logical reasoning. Something that you clearly have an astounding lack of.

How can you respond to such a stupid statement in which exploited human labour is compared to that of commodity trading with inanimate objects for purpose of speculating for a higher selling price?

There are only two approaches to this idiotic statement to get to the full ridiculousness of it.

Since the car didn&#39;t come into existence all by itself by dropping out of the sky one day the first approach would be to regress back to the original source of the car which would be the more sensible approach. The second approach would be to take literally what you are implying with your argument to its only logical conclusion to show the pure stupidity of it in which you would expect only a brain-damaged moron would consider it to make sense.

First approach, regression: Alright then, where did the car in which now you have the privilege of using it for price speculating come from? All that metal shaped into a usable frame and an engine must have utility value, otherwise you might as well be trading a rock you picked off the ground. If all that natural raw material is shaped into something useful then it could only ultimately come from labour be it manual labour or labour maintained automatic machines.

Now, we&#39;re back to the situation where the owners of productive resources pays the labourers less than the full selling price of the labour produced item of utility (the car). Given that the whole economy is like that (or you advocate to be like that) then this situation of paying less than the full selling price of all useful items is replicated throughout the entire real economy where fictitious debt tokens has at least some backing from corresponding to labour produced material wealth. Nevermind the real world consequence of this policy where a dominant section of the consumer population, that being the workers, have far less purchasing power from subjective value token based wages to exchange for all that was produced which would lead to an immediate slow down and crash of the economy. This would never work in the real world. But beyond that, by regressing to the original point of labour in making the car, it just proves that the car in your example is still a product of exploitation, that is an unequal exchange of purchasing power where the seller of a given labour produced commodity expects more in return than what was paid out to make the item in the first place. The workers being a class which is without the ownership of the means of production would have to work for wages which will have to be exchanged for their labour produced items in order to live which goes without saying would mean that they will be perpetually poor in relation to the class of people where all that money flows back (plus profits) for purchasing said commodities. Given that money is the society-wide accepted currency for exchange of debts the bourgeois as a class can continuously exchange money with themselves for worker produced items and still be rich. Nice scam you&#39;ve got going, eh?

Second approach, take to logical conclusion what you are implying with your argument: If you are going to compare inanimate objects like your car to the labour which went into producing said car while disregarding any connection between labour and labour produced commodities then we can only conclude that you regard inanimate labour produced objects and human beings as equivalent since its human labour which produced it in the first place. You cannot separate labour produced commodities from the labour which produced it as you cannot seperate human labour from the human beings which produced it. If there&#39;s human labour then there will be human beings which performed it, therefore, by aggregating the inseparable labour that went into the making of the car we can only conclude from your argument that you consider human beings inanimate objects like cars that could be bought and sold (for a profit) in the time period when they are hired for work. In other words, you support the renting of human beings for the moneyed elite&#39;s own gain. Thank you again for demonstrating commodity fetishism which extends all the way to human beings being rented as beasts of burden.

This is your argument essentially:

This is my car once you&#39;ve sold the car to me I can sell it for a higher price.

This is my worker once you&#39;ve sold your labour time to me I can sell your useful work for a higher price (in other words, renting human beings).

So it&#39;s your workers now? Taking possession of human beings for their ability to work. My, my aren&#39;t we showing psychopathic possessive tendencies? I mean what&#39;s next? Allowing people to sell themselves into slavery? Oh, I forgot you "Libertarians" support that disgusting policy too.


Tungsten
Because the market is (should I say should be) free. You can&#39;t have a system where prices are controlled legally by an uninvolved authority and then call it free.

Who ever said anything about prices? Prices, are arbitrary, subjective and controlled by an authority be it the government owning commodities or shareholders owning commodities. Does it matter if the authority was involved or uninvolved? If the authority was involved then it would be a lot easier to manipulate prices for the maximization of return prices (profit). Nevermind that given that debts are exchanged on an arbitrary basis regardless of any one-sided amortization of perishable goods upon exchange with permanently valued exchange tokens so based purely on a material commodity bartering basis, debt accounting with money falls flat.

[Tungsten]

red team

This is a really dishonest statement. It is simply a strawman in which you compare commodity speculation with the exploitation of labour.
The massive difference between commodity-for-commodity exchange and labour-for-commodity exchange exists only in your imagination. They&#39;re no different. One is not fair and the other exploitation, providing there&#39;s no force involved, they&#39;re both fair.

Despite that, I&#39;ll rip it to shreds with simple logical reasoning. Something that you clearly have an astounding lack of.
This is nothing but white noise. You don&#39;t understand my ideology enough to rip it to shreds and you don&#39;t have a consistent grap of logic to do it even if you did.

How can you respond to such a stupid statement in which exploited human labour is compared to that of commodity trading with inanimate objects for purpose of speculating for a higher selling price?
And here is the problem- you start off with the idea that labour exchange = exploitation and run with it with asking questions. Labour is not intrinsically superior to every other commodity. I&#39;m not arrogant enough to believe my labour as something superior and beyond price.

Since the car didn&#39;t come into existence all by itself by dropping out of the sky one day the first approach would be to regress back to the original source of the car which would be the more sensible approach. The second approach would be to take literally what you are implying with your argument to its only logical conclusion to show the pure stupidity of it in which you would expect only a brain-damaged moron would consider it to make sense.
thsthshstshshsthshshshtshshshs....this white noise is terrible, anyone seen the remote?

First approach, regression: Alright then, where did the car in which now you have the privilege of using it for price speculating come from? All that metal shaped into a usable frame and an engine must have utility value, otherwise you might as well be trading a rock you picked off the ground. If all that natural raw material is shaped into something useful then it could only ultimately come from labour be it manual labour or labour maintained automatic machines.

Now, we&#39;re back to the situation where the owners of productive resources pays the labourers less than the full selling price of the labour produced item of utility (the car).
Yep, we&#39;re back to it again allright. And I&#39;m getting bored of refuting it. Is this the part where you start insisting that labour is intriniscally valuable and that expending energy at random makes something valuable? What I value is decided by what I&#39;m willing to pay for it, not how much energy has been expended producing it.

Second approach, take to logical conclusion what you are implying with your argument: If you are going to compare inanimate objects like your car to the labour which went into producing said car while disregarding any connection between labour and labour produced commodities then we can only conclude that you regard inanimate labour produced objects and human beings as equivalent
No I don&#39;t. That&#39;s something you&#39;re dreamt up. Buying someone&#39;s labour off them and owning them by right are two different things.

since its human labour which produced it in the first place. You cannot separate labour produced commodities from the labour which produced it
Yes, it&#39;s easy, just make something and sell it.

as you cannot seperate human labour from the human beings which produced it.
Do you ever read what you write and realise how utterly ridiculous this sounds.

If there&#39;s human labour then there will be human beings which performed it, therefore, by aggregating the inseparable labour that went into the making of the car we can only conclude from your argument that you consider human beings inanimate objects like cars that could be bought and sold (for a profit) in the time period when they are hired for work.
Well that&#39;s settled it then. Any form of exchange, paid for or not, is exploitation because it can be regressed back to purchasing/exchanging labour and therefore purchasing/exchanging human beings. The only way we can prevent exploitation is for each of us to live on a desert island and do everything ourselves.

In other words, you support the renting of human beings for the moneyed elite&#39;s own gain.
This hasn&#39;t got exclusively to do with any moneyed elite.

Thank you again for demonstrating commodity fetishism which extends all the way to human beings being rented as beasts of burden.
I would have thought by now you&#39;d have figured out that I can&#39;t be fooled with hyperbole like this. After several weeks of similar antics, that fact should have sunk in.

Commodity fetishism? Do you mean buying and selling products? And beasts of burden? Do you mean workers who work for a wage? I don&#39;t remember the last time anyone paid a beast of burden to work.

This is my car once you&#39;ve sold the car to me I can sell it for a higher price.

This is my worker once you&#39;ve sold your labour time to me I can sell your useful work for a higher price (in other words, renting human beings).

So it&#39;s your workers now? Taking possession of human beings for their ability to work.
If you&#39;re going to use hyperbole, be consistent.

My, my aren&#39;t we showing psychopathic possessive tendencies? I mean what&#39;s next? Allowing people to sell themselves into slavery? Oh, I forgot you "Libertarians" support that disgusting policy too.
No we don&#39;t. Point proven- you can argue against what you don&#39;t grasp.


Who ever said anything about prices? Prices, are arbitrary, subjective and controlled by an authority be it the government owning commodities or shareholders owning commodities. Does it matter if the authority was involved or uninvolved?
Yes, because the transaction is rarely any of the authority&#39;s business.

If the authority was involved then it would be a lot easier to manipulate prices for the maximization of return prices (profit).
Whose profit? The authorities, or the buyer and seller&#39;s? Price fixing is just another failed anti-capitalist idea that didn&#39;t work.

I&#39;m not wasting any more time with this already discussed topic, so don&#39;t bother to reply.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:18 PM
How does it rely on the same things year after year? I just said it isn&#39;t really that complicated a system and when it&#39;s noticed that some sort of change is required it&#39;s not a lot to get new things. People get what they need.

You say IF people are not able to get unwanted items.....but they probably will be able to. Under capitalism a billion or so people can&#39;t get a healthy diet so they starve; under anarchism people will have access to land and the means of production so they have the power to do something about the lack of orange juice or whatnot; and people aren&#39;t told to deal with it themselves because nobody is telling them what to do. They effectively do for themselves what a government would usually do for them.
I said that that the sytem relies upon people wanting the same thing yearr after year because YOU said it.

People will figure it out. you say. Fine. But remember, this is a SOCIALIST community, not a capitalist one, so capitalist modes of production are closed to that community. So the people will have to figure it out using non-capitalist methods.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

did I miss it, or did you guys fail to refute my reply? :(