Communism and Free Trade

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

I have a theory i would like to advance. I want only to debate this with fellow socialists and communists - i don't want to debate this with capitalists right now... so please... fuck off.

believe it or not, this is the theory that resulted in me being put on restricted status: a dogmatic Stalinist named LSD disagreed with me, and rather than loosing a debate, decided it was easier to call me a capitalist and exile me to the opposing ideologies forum.

I believe communism CAN support a free market economy.

i realise that this is a contraversial concept... but was it not contraversial of Karl Marx to propose liberating the workers? was it not contraversial of Vladimir Lenin to propose pushing Russia from a feudal to socialist society (and skipping over the capitalist stage)?

the way I see it... all forms of socialism have one goal: to create a classless society run by the workers.

so why is it not feasable to conclude that communism can support a free market economy? although it is true that history has shown a free-market economy creates class division and workingclass exploitation, it is also true that there were more factors involved in this than just the free market. this is important: A free market economy in the capitalist system creates class divion and the slavery of the working class; i believe that a free market economy, when tweaked for a communist system, will NOT result in the horrors of capitalism.

private business must, of course, be eliminated; however, public ownership of business must be established... once we remove the bourgeois from control of business (and intergrate them into the working class, thus creating a classless society), we can put the businesses under the control of the workers.

if every business is controlled by the workers, we have liberated the working class. the workers of a particular company, operating as a single unit, could control the business via intermittent councils, in which they can elect a chairperson to run day-to-day operations between meetings. each of the company's locations' chairpeople would correspond in a similar convention to elect a company-wide chair-person to operate day-to-day business of the entire company.

to ensure efficiency, all jobs would pay by production (yes, that's right: i propose that we do not eliminate the wage system).

the original thought of the utopian socialist movement was: from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need. but communism is a theory that supports the concept of evolution, and i believe communism has evolved - and considering the lack of efficiency that is entailed by the concept that all people be paid the same, i believe that communism has evolved to accept an 'equal pay for equal work' thought.

however, i do believe that, since it is one of the basic principles of the socialist movement, it should be retained in this way: the tax system. each person contributes to the tax system as equals (a percentage of their income), and those who need the assistance are given such in an ammount that is appropriate to their needs.

back to the subject at hand...

the economy will always be dominated by the concept of supply vs. demand. this is why i believe that communism has evolved to encompass the modern economy, rather than hinder it. this is why i believe that a free market is best suited for all socioeconomic systems: the free market does absolutely nothing but adhere to this law, while the command economy is governemt by a stuffed suit who doesn't know the needs/wants of the people. afterall, communism is a movement to empower the people, and how else is the general public empowered over the economy better than by using their wants and needs to determine what goods and services are produced.

however, i do agree that this can create a good deal of unfair price fluctuations. this is why i believe there should be at least some form of control over the economy (to ensure a comfortable life for all the people, even those who are inefficient, and hence, earn less money than their efficient counterparts). i propose that, for necessities (such as basic forms of food), either a) there are established legal prices, based on the production cost of that food supply or b) these items are distributed to the people as each person needs. for example, if a loaf of bread costs 50 cents to produce, it should be sold for no more than 53 cents. this still allows the production company to earn a profit (incentive to stay in business and a means to improve production), but puts the needs of the people above the need to make profit. or, for example, the taxes collected (from each according to his ability) are used to pay the farmers, and the food produced is distributed to the people (to each, according to his needs)

as well, i feel that all profit earned by a company should be invested in 2 ways: half of it is invested back into the company to allow improvements, and the other half be distributed amongst that company's workers in the form of monthly 'efficiency dividends.' with products that are a necessity, these profits will be required to remain at a corporate-survival-minimal, or will not exist at all (the company itself would not exist, but rather the employees are paid by the government, and their products are distributed fairly to the people.

one market that i believe should not be left to the hands of corporations (even worker-operated corporations), though, is the housing market.

i think that all communities (such as a neighbourhood or village) should commonly own all shelter property, and distribute them to suit the needs of the residents - for example, a large family should be given a large home, while a bachelor should be given a single bedroom apartment. as well, since the property is collectively owned by the community, no rents of house payments would be required of the resident; the only responsibility the resident would have is that of upkeep: this allows the worker to retain a far greater percentage of his or her income for use on personal activities.

i could go on for hours and hours about this, but i feel i have covered most of the important parts of the idea.

this, i believe, is one of the few ways we could ever create a communist society in most of the western nations: very few amerikkans and very few europeans will agree with taking away the way of life the modern economy has created, so we have to fix it and incorporate it into our philosophy.

[Herman]

You know, theories which tend to be no more than around 800 words usually are very poor theories. I really suggest you think about what you say. Claiming to have made a new theory is no joke and it needs to be supported by facts and sources.

[Whitten]

freemarket socialism exists now... its called capitalism.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 07:54 pm
You know, theories which tend to be no more than around 800 words usually are very poor theories. I really suggest you think about what you say. Claiming to have made a new theory is no joke and it needs to be supported by facts and sources.
i cite no facts nor sources because it is THEORETICAL.

i want to debate the basic concepts of it...

and considering that it has never been attempted, not even remotely, there are no sources i could possibly cite - it's a NEW THEORY.

o... and by the way... just out of curiosity... do you how many words was the communist manifesto? in the original german, it was 14,621 words (i have the original german text on my computer)

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:05 pm
freemarket socialism exists now... its called capitalism.
do have have no understanding of what capitalism is? capitalism puts the control of corporations in the hands of individuals and private investors, NOT the working class.

socialism, real, true socialism, doesn't exist (though, there are a few capitalist countries that have incorporated a small ammount of socialism into their economies... such as sweden) and has never existed.

the countries that have minor socialist concepts incorporated into their economies, are, nonetheless, still capitalist.

[R_P_A_S]

private business must, of course, be eliminated; however, public ownership of business must be established... once we remove the bourgeois from control of business (and intergrate them into the working class, thus creating a classless society), we can put the businesses under the control of the worker

And how is this NOT alienation? how is this NOT division of classes? This will fuel a counter revolution. The old Bourgeois NOW the oppressed by their "proletariat masters"

I think what you are trying to create here my friend is some ultra-liberal society. just where bigger crumbs of the table are given to the poor and workers.

Lots of the things you were saying.. sure made some sense here and there. But under you theory class differences will excist. perhaps not as distant as present day. but they will be there.

you can't take any chances.

[gilhyle]

I think what is wrong with your 'theory' is that the model you suggest is not sustainable - it might be creatable (not a real word) but it will soon collapse. Ask how the workers state on top of this society will sustain itself in order to defend these laws that put all property in the hands of the workers ?

The NEP worked as an economic policy when the State was sustained as a workers state by the immense impetus of the revolution and by the existence of a whole layer of committed revolutionaries manning the state. Even then the monopoly of foreign trade was critical and Lenin and every one in the State was clear on the need to control capitalist accumulation and prevent the emergence of a capitalist class.

Trotsky has a very interesting discussion somewhere about the dilemmas the NEP state faced when there were strikes.

Thus the capitalist market is a legitimate temporary tactic, but the extent of the market must be constrained to the extent necessary so that the workers state can control it.

This raises the fundamental issue of what level of market-based economic growth an workers state can sustain without internal degeneration - a key question for workers states in underderdeveloped, former colonies.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+November 27, 2006 03:10 pm--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ November 27, 2006 03:10 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 08:05 pm
freemarket socialism exists now... its called capitalism.
do have have no understanding of what capitalism is? capitalism puts the control of corporations in the hands of individuals and private investors, NOT the working class.

socialism, real, true socialism, doesn't exist (though, there are a few capitalist countries that have incorporated a small ammount of socialism into their economies... such as sweden) and has never existed.

the countries that have minor socialist concepts incorporated into their economies, are, nonetheless, still capitalist. [/b]

This is an "Opposing Ideology" forum, and another socialist theory is not an "opposing ideology" so I will respond from a capitalist angle, and f*ck the ""f*ck you."

You will be smashed by your socilaist brethren because you have changed- nothing.

A worker owned, or controled industry, is not anathema to capitalism. They do function right now. You cannot just change the ownership for there to be a socialist community; you have to change how that ownership exercises its control. And I don't mean debates about the structure of worker councils, or how the votes for decisions are made. I am talking about what types of decisions need to be made, what sorts of information is used in making those decisions. A free market economy needs certain information available in making decisions, information which cannot exist in any self respecting socialist community.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+November 27, 2006 10:31 pm--> (ZX3 @ November 27, 2006 10:31 pm)
Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 27, 2006 03:10 pm

[email protected] 27, 2006 08:05 pm
freemarket socialism exists now... its called capitalism.
do have have no understanding of what capitalism is? capitalism puts the control of corporations in the hands of individuals and private investors, NOT the working class.

socialism, real, true socialism, doesn't exist (though, there are a few capitalist countries that have incorporated a small ammount of socialism into their economies... such as sweden) and has never existed.

the countries that have minor socialist concepts incorporated into their economies, are, nonetheless, still capitalist.

This is an "Opposing Ideology" forum, and another socialist theory is not an "opposing ideology" so I will respond from a capitalist angle, and f*ck the ""f*ck you."

You will be smashed by your socilaist brethren because you have changed- nothing.

A worker owned, or controled industry, is not anathema to capitalism. They do function right now. You cannot just change the ownership for there to be a socialist community; you have to change how that ownership exercises its control. And I don't mean debates about the structure of worker councils, or how the votes for decisions are made. I am talking about what types of decisions need to be made, what sorts of information is used in making those decisions. A free market economy needs certain information available in making decisions, information which cannot exist in any self respecting socialist community. [/b]
Wow. The fact you can't follow simple instrusctions tells me everything I need to know about your cognitive abilities.

On to the heap of crap that was the original post...


I believe communism CAN support a free market economy. Which shows you either misunderstand communism or the free market.


so why is it not feasable to conclude that communism can support a free market economy? Because, for one. We have no interest in continuing the chaos hat is capitalism. Free Trade, by its definition cannot be controlled.
although it is true that history has shown a free-market economy creates class division and workingclass exploitation, it is also true that there were more factors involved in this than just the free market. Actually the very being of the free market creates a class system, basically by raising one group to the top of this "free market", the 'cheating/lucky bastards' if you will, they then win fiscal control over the honest hardworking types, thus class division. If you could illustrate in a lucid manner exactly what factors other than capitalism created the current system of classes I'd love to know - especially as these classes are inherent in capitalism in the same way as free trade.


A free market economy in the capitalist system creates class divion and the slavery of the working class; i believe that a free market economy, when tweaked for a communist system, will NOT result in the horrors of capitalism. You're talking out of your arse.
A tweaked free market is not a free market, at least not one tweaked in any meaningfully socialist manner. You're delusional if you think otherwise.




private business must, of course, be eliminated; however, public ownership of business must be established... once we remove the bourgeois from control of business (and intergrate them into the working class, thus creating a classless society), we can put the businesses under the control of the workers. What you describe is pretty much syndicalism, except you're hanging on to some wild idea that wer need the concept of 'buissinesses'. We don't, they do nothing for us and are a result of the price system, of which the market economy is a part. Market economies, like the price system are complete shit.



if every business is controlled by the workers, we have liberated the working class. the workers of a particular company, operating as a single unit, could control the business via intermittent councils, in which they can elect a chairperson to run day-to-day operations between meetings. each of the company's locations' chairpeople would correspond in a similar convention to elect a company-wide chair-person to operate day-to-day business of the entire company. Wonderful, and when one company produces far less and therfore makes far less money than another? You create inequalities from the off and introduce the need for a scarcity based economic model (the market economy) which would result in ineffeciancies in energy and resource distribution.


to ensure efficiency, all jobs would pay by production (yes, that's right: i propose that we do not eliminate the wage system). I was tempted to stop here as it was clear you didn't understand anything at all, tha you are in fact a complete cretin crunching on crayons in a padded cell being allowed to play with the shiny computer. The wage system is again a part of price systems - which are ineffeciant at distribution. The wage system also creates an inequality in wages, by nescessity otherwise it is simply a meaningless step in a distributive system. Far from 'ensuring effeciancy' you would be encouraging the past ineffeciancies of price systems to creep back in and you will have reintroduced the idea of inequality and unfairness.



the original thought of the utopian socialist movement was: from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need. Remove the word utopian from there you stupid dunce. It's like you learned everything you know about socialism from the "It's a good idea in theory...." liberals.
but communism is a theory that supports the concept of evolution, and i believe communism has evolved How can something that doesn't currently exist, unless you're proposing the theory of socialism has evolved, in which case you would need to put forward a more compelling argument than the tripe you have thus far provided.
- and considering the lack of efficiency that is entailed by the concept that all people be paid the same, You've hit on something there, but I don't think you know it. The problem is not with the idea of "the same" - anyone who argues against equality is inherently reactionary, no the problem with everyone getting paid the same is that they're getting paid at all - we do not need a price system and therefore any monetary accounting becomes pointless.
i believe that communism has evolved to accept an 'equal pay for equal work' thought. You're wrong. 'equal pay for equal work' is pretty much a washy liberal sell of capitalism. Fairly soon you'll get people once more arguing for entrpeneurs, you'll get corruption in your elites, you'll open up black markets. Your system will crash, burn and die.



however, i do believe that, since it is one of the basic principles of the socialist movement, it should be retained in this way: the tax system. each person contributes to the tax system as equals (a percentage of their income), and those who need the assistance are given such in an ammount that is appropriate to their needs. I don't remember any socialist theortician that mentions taxation. Not only that but under a communist system the idea of 'tax' will be irrelevant.


the economy will always be dominated by the concept of supply vs. demand. Depends what you mean by that, If you mean in sense that more energy will be required to assurge a certian demand - then yes of course this goes without saying. However if you mean by supply and demand what you've thus far been spouting - i.e bourgeoise economism then no, you'll be in for a shock come the revolution.
this is why i believe that communism has evolved to encompass the modern economy, rather than hinder it. What utter tripe. I hae seen no useful expanding on communism since the days of Lenin so proclaiming 'communism has evolved' as if you were some authority on the subject fills me with all kinds of doubts and questions about your ability to reason.
this is why i believe that a free market is best suited for all socioeconomic systems: the free market does absolutely nothing but adhere to this law, while the command economy is governemt by a stuffed suit who doesn't know the needs/wants of the people. afterall, communism is a movement to empower the people, and how else is the general public empowered over the economy better than by using their wants and needs to determine what goods and services are produced. This is a usual cappie line of argument, if you could introduce me to the socialism that runs through this beyond surface-level nodding references then I will gladly give it merit until then I will simply debunk any pretentions you have to being socialist. The free market, for a start, is a price system construct and therfore any ideas you have about 'all socioeconomic systems' can fuck off, secondly a 'command economy' is a myth perpetuated by capitalists who want to continue creating a false demand, what it means in actuallity is a system for efficently distributing items in a logical and equal manner - not that any of that matters especially in an abundance based system. Finally the 'general public' will have no real say, as you've introduced the farcial idea of representetive democracy to the mess of this 'theory'.


however, i do agree that this can create a good deal of unfair price fluctuations. this is why i believe there should be at least some form of control over the economy Then it's not the 'free market ' is it you fucking shitheap?
(to ensure a comfortable life for all the people, even those who are inefficient, and hence, earn less money than their efficient counterparts). Wonderful. Now you define people in terms of efficency, you'd make a wonderful conservative - in fact I'm fairly sure that you just like the word 'communism' and have only really attatched it to your crackpot theory so as to get more chicks.
i propose that, for necessities (such as basic forms of food), either a) there are established legal prices, based on the production cost of that food supply or b) these items are distributed to the people as each person needs. for example, if a loaf of bread costs 50 cents to produce, it should be sold for no more than 53 cents. So you intend to rip off the consumer? Why bother with a means of economic management that is anything other than a method of distributing abundance?
this still allows the production company to earn a profit (incentive to stay in business and a means to improve production), There's fucking PROFIT in your proposed system?! WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SOCIALISM? Fuckign profit? Were you dropped on the head as a child? What the fuck is this, profit is simply another capitalist idea you've chosen to jam into your system.
but puts the needs of the people above the need to make profit. or, for example, the taxes collected (from each according to his ability) are used to pay the farmers, and the food produced is distributed to the people (to each, according to his needs) How is this different from the grumbling tory taxpayers paying their income tax ("from each according to his ability" apparently, although I'm not entirely convinced you know what that means (here's a hint - it doesn't mean, "From each according to his tax forms") and then little old me getting income support, jobseekers or, as is currently the case, bugger all ("To each according to his needs" again, I don't think you get this one.). I could think of many other examples where all you're doing is trying to sell reformist, liberal "happy capitalism" as if it can exist.


as well, i feel that all profit earned by a company should be invested in 2 ways: half of it is invested back into the company to allow improvements, and the other half be distributed amongst that company's workers in the form of monthly 'efficiency dividends.' with products that are a necessity, these profits will be required to remain at a corporate-survival-minimal, or will not exist at all (the company itself would not exist, but rather the employees are paid by the government, and their products are distributed fairly to the people. How would you enforce this? What would prevent a situation whereby the accountants of the company fiddle the books - they've got plenty of insentive after all - more profits.


no rents of house payments would be required of the resident; the only responsibility the resident would have is that of upkeep How, prey tell, does one measure upkeep?



i could go on for hours and hours about this, but i feel i have covered most of the important parts of the idea. Well most people who write theories spend months and months or even years and years on them, creating books that should take at least a day to read properly, if not more.


this, i believe, is one of the few ways we could ever create a communist society in most of the western nations: very few amerikkans and very few europeans will agree with taking away the way of life the modern economy has created, so we have to fix it and incorporate it into our philosophy. Don't be a stupid ****. "The only way we can create communism is to create something that isn't communistic at all but call it an 'evolved' version of communism." is not the answer to "People don't like us much". We still need to fight an win the culture war, we need to spread our ideas through the third world - create a majority communist world. Practical ideas. We should simply kill those that are too set in there ways, destroy reaction.

Chew on that you pus ridden goat nad.

[RNK]

Essentially you're saying "rather than instigate a Communist society, we should really just try to liberalize capitalism so that more people will be receptive of it..."

That's called the Democratic Party.

[JazzRemington]

This reminds me of Bakunin's collectivist theory and Mutualism.

[Nusocialist]

I believe communism CAN support a free market economy.
Individual anarchists like Benjamin Tucker believed that the complete lassez faire,would remove capitalism completely and set up a form of completely free market socialism,where the workers own their means of production.
This certainly is not communism,but is a form of socialism.

Mutualism is much the same if a little more collectivist.
They are not my chosen beliefs,but I don't think they are capitalism lite or anyting.

Of course it's questionable whether the complete removal of all state interference in market mechanisms would create anarchistic-market socialism.

It would only be possible with complete removal of uneven property rights etc in our economy.

[Matty_UK]

I think you're being harsh on the fella, what he's talking about *could* be what a transition to communism would look like. Rather than the working class seizing state power being the transition, it is entirely possible than a revolution could gradually happen with workplaces being occupied by workers, ejecting their bourgeois masters and dividing the profit equally. It would be interesting and relevant to speculate on how the ejection of bosses from workplaces would develop.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+--> (R_P_A_S)And how is this NOT alienation? how is this NOT division of classes? This will fuel a counter revolution. The old Bourgeois NOW the oppressed by their "proletaria[/b]

not so. they will be workers just like us. and what's more.... communism takes time... you can't just jump into it. with a few generations, the bourgeois will have been entirely incorporated into the proletariat.


Lots of the things you were saying.. sure made some sense here and there. But under you theory class differences will excist. perhaps not as distant as present day. but they will be there.

there will be no class distinction: we will all be workers. the only diferences that might arise are differences between efficient and not efficient workers, and those differences will be very minimal.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I think what is wrong with your 'theory' is that the model you suggest is not sustainable - it might be creatable (not a real word) but it will soon collapse. Ask how the workers state on top of this society will sustain itself in order to defend these laws that put all property in the hands of the workers ?

this is why i don't agree with abolition of the government. the government must exist to protect the people.


This raises the fundamental issue of what level of market-based economic growth an workers state can sustain without internal degeneration - a key question for workers states in underderdeveloped, former colonies.

economic growth will continue because it is the foundation of a free market economy. the profits, though very small, return to the workers. the workers control the corporations. if the workers want to increase the profits of their respective industries, they will do whatever necessary to encourage growth.


"ZX3"
A worker owned, or controled industry, is not anathema to capitalism. They do function right now. You cannot just change the ownership for there to be a socialist community; you have to change how that ownership exercises its control. And I don't mean debates about the structure of worker councils, or how the votes for decisions are made. I am talking about what types of decisions need to be made, what sorts of information is used in making those decisions. A free market economy needs certain information available in making decisions, information which cannot exist in any self respecting socialist community.

the economy would be one considered socialist. the society, however, would be where communism exists: the classless society where each person is a worker who works with his fellow workers to maintain a comfortable standard of life for the entire community. private ownership is reduced to only that of basic materials: cars, furnature, etc. homes are owned by the community as a whole, and distributed among the people as they need. please take the time to read the entire thread AND make sure you understand it before commenting.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
Because, for one. We have no interest in continuing the chaos hat is capitalism. Free Trade, by its definition cannot be controlled.

and where does it say that communism is a form of control? communism, if nothing else, is freedom from control.


Actually the very being of the free market creates a class system, basically by raising one group to the top of this "free market", the 'cheating/lucky bastards' if you will, they then win fiscal control over the honest hardworking types, thus class division. If you could illustrate in a lucid manner exactly what factors other than capitalism created the current system of classes I'd love to know - especially as these classes are inherent in capitalism in the same way as free trade.

no, capitalism creates the class system. the freemarket simply says that we can sell, trade, and buy whatever we want whenever we want in whatever quantity we want at whatever price we want. capitalism allows individuals to take advantage of this, and creates the bourgeois and ultrabourgeois (bill gates, ted turner, etc) class. communism will eliminate these classes, and put the workers in control of the corporations. with a free market in a socialist system, these worker controlled industries will be free to trade as they want, except as what i noted in my original post.


You're talking out of your arse.
A tweaked free market is not a free market, at least not one tweaked in any meaningfully socialist manner. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

socialism simply says that the workers are in control of the means of production, which, in this case, is the corporations.

i propose a 'tweaked free market' to ensure a communal society: we shouldn't have to earn the things that are a necessity to life - they should be returned to us for our labour and input into the economy.


What you describe is pretty much syndicalism, except you're hanging on to some wild idea that wer need the concept of 'buissinesses'. We don't, they do nothing for us and are a result of the price system, of which the market economy is a part. Market economies, like the price system are complete shit.

syndicalism is a root of the workers movement.

and, whether you consider the economy and price system shit or not, they are the forces that have created the modern world, and they are here to stay. i simply propose we put a socialist edge on them to make them fair to the working class.


Wonderful, and when one company produces far less and therfore makes far less money than another? You create inequalities from the off and introduce the need for a scarcity based economic model (the market economy) which would result in ineffeciancies in energy and resource distribution.

when a company is underproductive, it requires less workers. with less workers, the profits are distributed among those workers in the same ratio as with that of a large corporation.

example: corporation A makes 1,000 autos per year, sold at 1,000 dollars profit each. to do this, this corporation requires 100 workers. this means that half of the entire profit is returned to the workers, or 5,000 $ to each worker. HOWEVER, corporation B makes 500 autos per year, sold at 1,000 dollars profit each. to do this, this corporation requires 50 workers. this means that, after half of the profit is invested back into the corporation for improvement, each worker has an additional 5,000 $ income.

so... where is the class distinction?


I was tempted to stop here as it was clear you didn't understand anything at all, tha you are in fact a complete cretin crunching on crayons in a padded cell being allowed to play with the shiny computer. The wage system is again a part of price systems - which are ineffeciant at distribution. The wage system also creates an inequality in wages, by nescessity otherwise it is simply a meaningless step in a distributive system. Far from 'ensuring effeciancy' you would be encouraging the past ineffeciancies of price systems to creep back in and you will have reintroduced the idea of inequality and unfairness.

first of all... i reported you for needless insults.

secondly: explain to me HOW, in any way, shape, or form, a production pay scale is inefficient.


Remove the word utopian from there you stupid dunce. It's like you learned everything you know about socialism from the "It's a good idea in theory...." liberals.

are you going to debate like an intelligent human being... or just throw out insults like a child?


You've hit on something there, but I don't think you know it. The problem is not with the idea of "the same" - anyone who argues against equality is inherently reactionary, no the problem with everyone getting paid the same is that they're getting paid at all - we do not need a price system and therefore any monetary accounting becomes pointless.

with no price and wage system... where will you earn the money to buy the things you want? remember now... we are humans: we have more than just NEEDS - we also have WANTS.

this is why i advance the theory of 'tweaked free market' - we are given the things we need in return for our contribution to society. but i believe that we must be paid for our hard work, so that we can buy the things we want.


You're wrong. 'equal pay for equal work' is pretty much a washy liberal sell of capitalism. Fairly soon you'll get people once more arguing for entrpeneurs, you'll get corruption in your elites, you'll open up black markets. Your system will crash, burn and die.

"corruption in my elites"? did you not read the post? there will be no elites.

and, how do you know my system will 'crash, burn, and die'? it has never been tried. for that matter... the same could be said of pure communism and pure socialism: neither have ever been tried.


I don't remember any socialist theortician that mentions taxation. Not only that but under a communist system the idea of 'tax' will be irrelevant.

because it probably hasn't been mentioned. remember: this is a new theory. i propose taxes are what we use to create a "from each .... to each" social system. that... and we need taxes to operate our government (that's right - there will be government).

i'm purely anti-anarchy. anarchy simply will not work. we need government to protect the people (and nothing more). this is why anarchism doesn't work: there is nothing to stop me from creating my own personal militia and conquering the territory around me. once i do that, i will be the government, and we'll be back to the despotism stage of human governmental development.


Depends what you mean by that, If you mean in sense that more energy will be required to assurge a certian demand - then yes of course this goes without saying. However if you mean by supply and demand what you've thus far been spouting - i.e bourgeoise economism then no, you'll be in for a shock come the revolution.

once again: the bourgeois will not exist. what i mean by supply and demand is that: we, the consumer (and yes, in my system, also the producer), will always demand, and that we, the producer, will supply them. WE FUEL OUR OWN ECONOMY. it's not us buying things from them: it's us buying things from ourselves.


What utter tripe. I hae seen no useful expanding on communism since the days of Lenin so proclaiming 'communism has evolved' as if you were some authority on the subject fills me with all kinds of doubts and questions about your ability to reason.

and it is people like you who are in the process of dooming communism to remain nothing more than a theory.


This is a usual cappie line of argument, if you could introduce me to the socialism that runs through this beyond surface-level nodding references then I will gladly give it merit until then I will simply debunk any pretentions you have to being socialist. The free market, for a start, is a price system construct and therfore any ideas you have about 'all socioeconomic systems' can fuck off, secondly a 'command economy' is a myth perpetuated by capitalists who want to continue creating a false demand, what it means in actuallity is a system for efficently distributing items in a logical and equal manner - not that any of that matters especially in an abundance based system. Finally the 'general public' will have no real say, as you've introduced the farcial idea of representetive democracy to the mess of this 'theory'.

capitalist my ass.

it is socialism because it puts the control of the means of production in the hands of the working class.

ok... if the command economy is a myth... then what kind of economy is there in north korea or coba, or in the former USSR/eastern bloc? those certainly were not free markets nor barter economies.

how is it efficient to put the government in control of our economies? how is it efficient for some lazy never-worked-a-day-in-his-life empty suit to tell us what to make, how much to make, when to make it, and how to distribute it?

and if it is efficient... then why are the people existing at a minimal level of survival (famines, shortages, etc.)


Then it's not the 'free market ' is it you fucking shitheap?

the free market exists to distribute the things we want. organised distribution exists to cover the things we need, such as food, and the communal society owns other things we need (such as housing, energy, and public transportation) so that we have it (in return for our contribution to society as a whole) without having to worry about where it's coming from.


Wonderful. Now you define people in terms of efficency, you'd make a wonderful conservative - in fact I'm fairly sure that you just like the word 'communism' and have only really attatched it to your crackpot theory so as to get more chicks.

lmao. does it get more chicks for you?


So you intend to rip off the consumer? Why bother with a means of economic management that is anything other than a method of distributing abundance?

how is it "ripping them off" by giving the people the ability to buy the things they want with excess income (and, considering there is a great deal of it, being as how we would no longer have to pay for our homes, the things we want will come easily)


There's fucking PROFIT in your proposed system?! WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SOCIALISM? Fuckign profit? Were you dropped on the head as a child? What the fuck is this, profit is simply another capitalist idea you've chosen to jam into your system.

first of all... i have clearly put "people before profit" (sound familiar? that's one of the taglines of the CPUSA).

second: socialism is nothing more than putting the workers in charge of the economy. don't invest into it anymore than what it really is.


How is this different from the grumbling tory taxpayers paying their income tax ("from each according to his ability" apparently, although I'm not entirely convinced you know what that means (here's a hint - it doesn't mean, "From each according to his tax forms") and then little old me getting income support, jobseekers or, as is currently the case, bugger all ("To each according to his needs" again, I don't think you get this one.). I could think of many other examples where all you're doing is trying to sell reformist, liberal "happy capitalism" as if it can exist.

tell me a more efficient way to create a 'from each.... to each" system?

the tax system has been there all the time, it just hasn't been used correctly because capitalists control our world. if the government takes taxes equally from each person (the "according to his ability" part) and uses them to distribute goods to the people as they need (the "according to his need" part), then we have a good deal of communal theory tied into our government.


How would you enforce this? What would prevent a situation whereby the accountants of the company fiddle the books - they've got plenty of insentive after all - more profits.

as i said: the government will continue to exist to protect the people; ensuring that a company doesn't take advantage would be protecting the people.


How, prey tell, does one measure upkeep?

if the residence remains in good living condition. if it falls below a set standard, then the resident family should be given a certain ammount of time to return it to the standard (remember, the property belongs to the community as a whole: one should not destroy property that one doesn't own, because there is a good chance this property will be occupied by someone else in the future).


Well most people who write theories spend months and months or even years and years on them, creating books that should take at least a day to read properly, if not more.

right now, my theory is in the development stage: i chose to develope it further by posting it in a socialist community so i can respond to various degrees of criticism.


We should simply kill those that are too set in there ways, destroy reaction.

o yeah... that'll give us a good reputation, won't it?


Chew on that you pus ridden goat nad.

aw... getting frustrated?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+November 28, 2006 03:36 pm--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ November 28, 2006 03:36 pm)
Jazzratt
Because, for one. We have no interest in continuing the chaos hat is capitalism. Free Trade, by its definition cannot be controlled.

and where does it say that communism is a form of control? communism, if nothing else, is freedom from control. [/b]
I was talking about controlling the market so as to allow abundance, you silly wanker.




Actually the very being of the free market creates a class system, basically by raising one group to the top of this "free market", the 'cheating/lucky bastards' if you will, they then win fiscal control over the honest hardworking types, thus class division. If you could illustrate in a lucid manner exactly what factors other than capitalism created the current system of classes I'd love to know - especially as these classes are inherent in capitalism in the same way as free trade.

no, capitalism creates the class system. The market is part of capitalism and all other price systems.
the freemarket simply says that we can sell, trade, and buy whatever we want whenever we want in whatever quantity we want at whatever price we want. That is capitalism and the price system, you stupid ****.
capitalism allows individuals to take advantage of this, and creates the bourgeois and ultrabourgeois (bill gates, ted turner, etc) class. communism will eliminate these classes, and put the workers in control of the corporations. with a free market in a socialist system, these worker controlled industries will be free to trade as they want, except as what i noted in my original post. You still haven't shown what happens when one company creates a dominant monopoy as is bound to happen in any genuinley free market. Also what stops your elected representatives becoming corrupt and greedy?



You're talking out of your arse.
A tweaked free market is not a free market, at least not one tweaked in any meaningfully socialist manner. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

socialism simply says that the workers are in control of the means of production, which, in this case, is the corporations. Come back when you know more than simply one basic tenet of socialism.


i propose a 'tweaked free market' to ensure a communal society: we shouldn't have to earn the things that are a necessity to life - they should be returned to us for our labour and input into the economy. We need not "earn" anything.



What you describe is pretty much syndicalism, except you're hanging on to some wild idea that wer need the concept of 'buissinesses'. We don't, they do nothing for us and are a result of the price system, of which the market economy is a part. Market economies, like the price system are complete shit.

syndicalism is a root of the workers movement. Interesting argument, care to expand?


and, whether you consider the economy and price system shit or not, they are the forces that have created the modern world, and they are here to stay. Feudalism brought us to the modern world way back when, but guess what it wasn't "there to stay", nor is your capitalism.
i simply propose we put a socialist edge on them to make them fair to the working class. You propose liberalism? You're an idiot.



Wonderful, and when one company produces far less and therfore makes far less money than another? You create inequalities from the off and introduce the need for a scarcity based economic model (the market economy) which would result in ineffeciancies in energy and resource distribution.

when a company is underproductive, it requires less workers. with less workers, the profits are distributed among those workers in the same ratio as with that of a large corporation. What if a company creates a monoply by price gouging? What if a company simply loses out on the great gamble that is the free market? How about the chaos of the market making erratic and slow scientific progress?


example: corporation A makes 1,000 autos per year, sold at 1,000 dollars profit each. to do this, this corporation requires 100 workers. this means that half of the entire profit is returned to the workers, or 5,000 $ to each worker. HOWEVER, corporation B makes 500 autos per year, sold at 1,000 dollars profit each. to do this, this corporation requires 50 workers. this means that, after half of the profit is invested back into the corporation for improvement, each worker has an additional 5,000 $ income. You know nothing of economics, both companies could easily require the same number of workers. What if one companay decides to automate its factories and still makes the same profit? Creating a rich and poor once again.


so... where is the class distinction? Once the monopolys come out you'll see it. Fairly soon the government will be pressued and soon enough we'll be back where we started.



I was tempted to stop here as it was clear you didn't understand anything at all, tha you are in fact a complete cretin crunching on crayons in a padded cell being allowed to play with the shiny computer. The wage system is again a part of price systems - which are ineffeciant at distribution. The wage system also creates an inequality in wages, by nescessity otherwise it is simply a meaningless step in a distributive system. Far from 'ensuring effeciancy' you would be encouraging the past ineffeciancies of price systems to creep back in and you will have reintroduced the idea of inequality and unfairness.

first of all... i reported you for needless insults. :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh dear fuck. HAHAHAHAHA. You reported me for my "needless insults". Do you know how little will be done about that? We don't have a policiy of being nice to the restricted cretins.


secondly: explain to me HOW, in any way, shape, or form, a production pay scale is inefficient. It's based on a price system. I'm sure you're capable of reading up on technocracy to understand why a price system is a bad idea.



Remove the word utopian from there you stupid dunce. It's like you learned everything you know about socialism from the "It's a good idea in theory...." liberals.

are you going to debate like an intelligent human being... or just throw out insults like a child? Are you going to provide any statements with merit? Or are you going to whine about inuslts?



You've hit on something there, but I don't think you know it. The problem is not with the idea of "the same" - anyone who argues against equality is inherently reactionary, no the problem with everyone getting paid the same is that they're getting paid at all - we do not need a price system and therefore any monetary accounting becomes pointless.

with no price and wage system... where will you earn the money to buy the things you want? money is a construct of the price system you idiot, the answer isn't you wouldn't. If you want to know the alternative to the price system look up energy accounting whilst you're reading up on technocracy.
remember now... we are humans: we have more than just NEEDS - we also have WANTS. Which can easily be provided in a state of abundance.


this is why i advance the theory of 'tweaked free market' - we are given the things we need in return for our contribution to society. That's welfae capitalism you're talking about. Silly liberal.
but i believe that we must be paid for our hard work, so that we can buy the things we want. Why not just have things we want provided? I think somone doesn't understand communism.



You're wrong. 'equal pay for equal work' is pretty much a washy liberal sell of capitalism. Fairly soon you'll get people once more arguing for entrpeneurs, you'll get corruption in your elites, you'll open up black markets. Your system will crash, burn and die.

"corruption in my elites"? did you not read the post? there will be no elites. Representative democracy creates elites in the form of the representatives.


and, how do you know my system will 'crash, burn, and die'? it has never been tried. for that matter... the same could be said of pure communism and pure socialism: neither have ever been tried. Read my post, think about it a little before replying and then think to yourself "Oh right! THAT'S how! For the very reasons he stated in the sentence. What a cretin I've been! Now I'll become a communist.".



I don't remember any socialist theortician that mentions taxation. Not only that but under a communist system the idea of 'tax' will be irrelevant.

because it probably hasn't been mentioned. Then why did you declare taxation socialistic?
remember: this is a new theory. i propose taxes are what we use to create a "from each .... to each" social system. Then you're missing the point of the "from...to" relationship.
that... and we need taxes to operate our government (that's right - there will be government). Why do we a) Need a government, b) Need taxes to prop them up?


i'm purely anti-anarchy. anarchy simply will not work. we need government to protect the people (and nothing more). That rests on the strange assumption that the only thing stopping us killing everyone is the government. Now I don't know about you but I've never had the following internal dialogue "Y'know if it weren't for laws I'd just rape that girl over there, and then murder everyone in that school over there.", your second problem is that people who do murder do it regardless of the existance of government.
this is why anarchism doesn't work: there is nothing to stop me from creating my own personal militia and conquering the territory around me. Why would anyone want to join your militia? Why would you want to form it?
once i do that, i will be the government, and we'll be back to the despotism stage of human governmental development. a) You haven't explained why or how you would 'conquer' anything, where you would get this militia and what would be in it for them. b) The stages of government aren't the same as on the game 'civilisation'.

By the way I'm anti-anarchist, to an extent. Just trying to make sure you have some kind of argumentative skill.



Depends what you mean by that, If you mean in sense that more energy will be required to assurge a certian demand - then yes of course this goes without saying. However if you mean by supply and demand what you've thus far been spouting - i.e bourgeoise economism then no, you'll be in for a shock come the revolution.

once again: the bourgeois will not exist. What made you feel the need to mention this.
what i mean by supply and demand is that: we, the consumer (and yes, in my system, also the producer), will always demand, and that we, the producer, will supply them. WE FUEL OUR OWN ECONOMY. it's not us buying things from them: it's us buying things from ourselves. As I thought, bourgeoise.



What utter tripe. I hae seen no useful expanding on communism since the days of Lenin so proclaiming 'communism has evolved' as if you were some authority on the subject fills me with all kinds of doubts and questions about your ability to reason.

and it is people like you who are in the process of dooming communism to remain nothing more than a theory. Bollocks. It's people like you who are our most insidious enemies, you destroy the idea of communism. You are simply proposing a new kind of capitalism.



This is a usual cappie line of argument, if you could introduce me to the socialism that runs through this beyond surface-level nodding references then I will gladly give it merit until then I will simply debunk any pretentions you have to being socialist. The free market, for a start, is a price system construct and therfore any ideas you have about 'all socioeconomic systems' can fuck off, secondly a 'command economy' is a myth perpetuated by capitalists who want to continue creating a false demand, what it means in actuallity is a system for efficently distributing items in a logical and equal manner - not that any of that matters especially in an abundance based system. Finally the 'general public' will have no real say, as you've introduced the farcial idea of representetive democracy to the mess of this 'theory'.

capitalist my ass. What a witty retort.


it is socialism because it puts the control of the means of production in the hands of the working class. But it doesn't, it puts it in control of elected officials.


ok... if the command economy is a myth... then what kind of economy is there in north korea or coba, or in the former USSR/eastern bloc? those certainly were not free markets nor barter economies. They were/are price system regulated market economies. They were trying to be distributive economies, but none have succeeded thanks to the insidious grip of the global free market (smash it up).


how is it efficient to put the government in control of our economies? how is it efficient for some lazy never-worked-a-day-in-his-life empty suit to tell us what to make, how much to make, when to make it, and how to distribute it? Straw man. Where did I say that it had to be a guy who didn't work? A distributive economoy would need to be presided over by no one.


and if it is efficient... then why are the people existing at a minimal level of survival (famines, shortages, etc.) What people? Where are these fictional people that already live in an abundant distributive system?



Then it's not the 'free market ' is it you fucking shitheap?

the free market exists to distribute the things we want. No it doesn't, it excists to distribute nothing, it is not a distributive economic model.
organised distribution exists to cover the things we need, such as food, and the communal society owns other things we need (such as housing, energy, and public transportation) so that we have it (in return for our contribution to society as a whole) without having to worry about where it's coming from. The distributive system exists to spread an abundance. Energy accounting can be used for the creation of "luxuries" (if you must characterise them as such).



Wonderful. Now you define people in terms of efficency, you'd make a wonderful conservative - in fact I'm fairly sure that you just like the word 'communism' and have only really attatched it to your crackpot theory so as to get more chicks.

lmao. does it get more chicks for you? You got nothing?



So you intend to rip off the consumer? Why bother with a means of economic management that is anything other than a method of distributing abundance?

how is it "ripping them off" by giving the people the ability to buy the things they want with excess income (and, considering there is a great deal of it, being as how we would no longer have to pay for our homes, the things we want will come easily) The consumer is payng more for the product than it is actually worth. The definition of a rip off. Oh and if you propose paying the worker less they are exploited. Rock and a hard place for your system isn't it?



There's fucking PROFIT in your proposed system?! WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SOCIALISM? Fuckign profit? Were you dropped on the head as a child? What the fuck is this, profit is simply another capitalist idea you've chosen to jam into your system.

first of all... i have clearly put "people before profit" (sound familiar? that's one of the taglines of the CPUSA). You've put the slogan in, but none of the meaning.


second: socialism is nothing more than putting the workers in charge of the economy. don't invest into it anymore than what it really is. For the love of fuck read Kapital. Or at least the Manifesto. Also try state and the revolution.



How is this different from the grumbling tory taxpayers paying their income tax ("from each according to his ability" apparently, although I'm not entirely convinced you know what that means (here's a hint - it doesn't mean, "From each according to his tax forms") and then little old me getting income support, jobseekers or, as is currently the case, bugger all ("To each according to his needs" again, I don't think you get this one.). I could think of many other examples where all you're doing is trying to sell reformist, liberal "happy capitalism" as if it can exist.

tell me a more efficient way to create a 'from each.... to each" system? Energy Accounting, Distributive economies. Simply giving to each.


the tax system has been there all the time, So has the cold virus, why do we need either?
it just hasn't been used correctly because capitalists control our world. if the government takes taxes equally from each person (the "according to his ability" part) and uses them to distribute goods to the people as they need (the "according to his need" part), then we have a good deal of communal theory tied into our government. THat's simply a liberal welfare state you're proposing.



How would you enforce this? What would prevent a situation whereby the accountants of the company fiddle the books - they've got plenty of insentive after all - more profits.

as i said: the government will continue to exist to protect the people; ensuring that a company doesn't take advantage would be protecting the people. But you'd then interfere with the autonomy of the free market, making it no longer a free market. Beyond that remeeber as they have a profit insentive the corruption will often be far more tempting, especially if they can bribe government officials. See how easily your system falls?



How, prey tell, does one measure upkeep?

if the residence remains in good living condition. if it falls below a set standard, then the resident family should be given a certain ammount of time to return it to the standard (remember, the property belongs to the community as a whole: one should not destroy property that one doesn't own, because there is a good chance this property will be occupied by someone else in the future). I meant what is the objective numerical measurment? Or are you suggesting it's all simply subjective according to one local government's estimatian of 'good living conditions'.



Well most people who write theories spend months and months or even years and years on them, creating books that should take at least a day to read properly, if not more.

right now, my theory is in the development stage: i chose to develope it further by posting it in a socialist community so i can respond to various degrees of criticism. Take it to a capitalist community, it will be appreaciated more by the other enemies of socialism.



We should simply kill those that are too set in there ways, destroy reaction.

o yeah... that'll give us a good reputation, won't it? THe revolution is neither a dinner party nor a battle for the moral high ground. It is the emancipation of my class for which I am willing to fight. Fight the cultural revolution then the physical revolution.



Chew on that you pus ridden goat nad.

aw... getting frustrated? Do you blame me? You argue like a bourgeoise politician and you have come up with the stupidist form of capitalism I've heard of in my life.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+November 28, 2006 09:23 am--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ November 28, 2006 09:23 am)

"ZX3"
A worker owned, or controled industry, is not anathema to capitalism. They do function right now. You cannot just change the ownership for there to be a socialist community; you have to change how that ownership exercises its control. And I don't mean debates about the structure of worker councils, or how the votes for decisions are made. I am talking about what types of decisions need to be made, what sorts of information is used in making those decisions. A free market economy needs certain information available in making decisions, information which cannot exist in any self respecting socialist community.

the economy would be one considered socialist. the society, however, would be where communism exists: the classless society where each person is a worker who works with his fellow workers to maintain a comfortable standard of life for the entire community. private ownership is reduced to only that of basic materials: cars, furnature, etc. homes are owned by the community as a whole, and distributed among the people as they need. please take the time to read the entire thread AND make sure you understand it before commenting.
[/b]


You can call the economy what you want, but it will not be substantially different than the capitalist environment. So far, the other socialists on these boards seem not to find it as an acceptable form of socialism.
HOW do the workers work together in a socilaist community? In what way is it different?

How are the houses distributed? What is the determination for building them?


One of the issues I have had with socioalists on these boards has been either their inability or unwillingness to describe how a socialist community will function. Your proposal is an aatempt, but basically you are stating that if the workers own the means of production, everything else can stay the same. That is not socialism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 27, 2006 02:36 pm

however, i do agree that this can create a good deal of unfair price fluctuations. this is why i believe there should be at least some form of control over the economy (to ensure a comfortable life for all the people, even those who are inefficient, and hence, earn less money than their efficient counterparts). i propose that, for necessities (such as basic forms of food), either a) there are established legal prices, based on the production cost of that food supply or b) these items are distributed to the people as each person needs. for example, if a loaf of bread costs 50 cents to produce, it should be sold for no more than 53 cents. this still allows the production company to earn a profit (incentive to stay in business and a means to improve production), but puts the needs of the people above the need to make profit. or, for example, the taxes collected (from each according to his ability) are used to pay the farmers, and the food produced is distributed to the people (to each, according to his needs)



Here is a weakness with the proposal:

You are only proposing to regulate the price of certain items. But those items need to purchase goods and service in its production (the production of bread does not only need farmers, it needs trucks to distribute the bread, some sort of wrap to be placed aropund the bread, machinery to produce the bread, cleaning supplies, fuesl ect). If the socilaist community is to be free market, it means that the producers of those items, if they are nort deemed to be essential, can charge what somebody else wil pay. If the bread producers price is fixed, it make tougher for the bread producer to purchase those items. So the bread producer either cuts back production of bread OR does not purchase as much of other items. Either way, you are not making it more likely people get enough. You are making it less likely.

You have suggested subsidising the bread manufacturer. But that still poses a problem. Because the obnly way to subsidise the breasd people is by taking the money through taxes from industries which are profitable and successful (thus most likely from those industries not subject to price regulatiion and otherwise are engaging in feree market. But this means that those successful industries have less money to expand and be successful. This does not help the community. The proposal would also require the employment of numbers of beauracrats whose job it will be to process the paperwork to get the money to the bread folks, who would have the money anyhow without the middlemann, save for the price regulation. This also does not help the community.

There can be no half measures to creating socialism. Socialism is cold, it is bloody, it is violent. People who claim the contrary are simply wrong.

[Herman]

i cite no facts nor sources because it is THEORETICAL.

It doesn't matter whether it is theoretical or not. Do you think Lenin didn't use any sources for his theories, or any other theorist for that matter?


i want to debate the basic concepts of it...

and considering that it has never been attempted, not even remotely, there are no sources i could possibly cite - it's a NEW THEORY.

It doesn't matter. If you think your theory is new and revolutionary, you are MEANT to prove it by citing sources and other ideas which might have influenced your theory in some way.


o... and by the way... just out of curiosity... do you how many words was the communist manifesto? in the original german, it was 14,621 words (i have the original german text on my computer)

So? It was a PAMPHLET, not a book. And that's not where Marx or Engels wrote their philosophies and theories originally. That was only an open declaration of communist aims simplified in a short pamphlet. All their previous groundwork they had already done and SOURCED.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

I was talking about controlling the market so as to allow abundance, you silly wanker.

abundance comes with efficiency. command economy (where the market is controlled by an external organisation (such as the government) destroys efficiency.


The market is part of capitalism and all other price systems

you misunderstand capitalism and its relation to the free market.

capitalism employs the free market, but communism/socialism can as well. the only difference is in the essence of the socioeconomic system.

free market capitalism: individuals control the means of production.
free market socialism: workers control the means of production.



the freemarket simply says that we can sell, trade, and buy whatever we want whenever we want in whatever quantity we want at whatever price we want.
That is capitalism and the price system, you stupid ****.

first: i reported you again. refrain from insults and vulgarities, and debate the topic at hand in an intelligent manner.

second (READ THIS CLOSELY): so, what you're saying is that, having the freedom to buy, sell, and trade what we want only exists in capitalism?

so it would logically follow that, since communism is the opposite of capitalism, we would therefore not have the freedom to buy, sell, or trade under a communist system?

if that were true, communism would be synonymous with dictatorship - a form of complete control over every aspect of the peoples' lives.

lucky for us, it's not: communist theory, in fact, promotes just the exact opposite of that: a life free from control (yes, my friend, even freedom to buy, sell, and trade as we wish)


You still haven't shown what happens when one company creates a dominant monopoy as is bound to happen in any genuinley free market. Also what stops your elected representatives becoming corrupt and greedy?

first off: anti-monopoly laws (they exist just about everywhere).

second: direct democracy.

the elected representatives should exist only to propose new laws and law changes. the people should ultimately have control over whether or not these proposals become laws. but also i believe that each community should have separate law charters, and each respectively vote as to whether proposals become law in their specific community (for example: if a michigan representative proposes legalising marijuana... the elected representatives vote if it can be a temporary change or not (until the next ballot). they decide not to legalise it for michigan. when the next ballot is drawn up, the proposed change is on there. well, the commune that i live in (central lansing) decides that the change will be written into our charter (that marijuana WILL be legalised), but the the next commune over (north lansing) decides not to ratify the proposed change (deciding that marijuana will remain illegal). this is real democracy: the people have control)


Come back when you know more than simply one basic tenet of socialism.

can't think of any of those witty responces with which you adorn this discussion board so well?


We need not "earn" anything.

so then everyone deserves a german luxury car, a yacht, a personal jet, a mansion, and the most exquisite wine in the world? are you saying that, even though i work twice as hard and twice as fast as most of my fellow lumpers, that i don't deserve some sort of reward for it?

you don't work, do you?




What you describe is pretty much syndicalism, except you're hanging on to some wild idea that wer need the concept of 'buissinesses'. We don't, they do nothing for us and are a result of the price system, of which the market economy is a part. Market economies, like the price system are complete shit.

syndicalism is a root of the workers movement.

Interesting argument, care to expand?

syndicalism is one of many good ideas involved with the labour movement. i see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented in a socialist society: let the workers form unions, and let those unions run some of their members for government positions. not only will the workers control the means of production, they'll have a good solid hold on the government as well, which will give the workers the power to decide if they want to push even further toward traditional communism (the oldcore variety you seem to like) or remain in a modern state of socialism with communistic social structures (my theory).


Feudalism brought us to the modern world way back when, but guess what it wasn't "there to stay", nor is your capitalism.

explain to me how feudalism crafted modernity.

and: where have i said that capitalism is here to stay? i have clearly pointed out that capitalism (control of the means of production BY individuals FOR personal gain) will give way to socialism (control of the means of production BY the workers FOR the gain of society as a whole)


You propose liberalism?

no, liberalism only encourages simple concessions to the working class like raises and benefits packages. i encourage an entire restructuring of society on a socialist basis.


You're an idiot.

aw, how childish of you.


What if a company creates a monoply by price gouging? What if a company simply loses out on the great gamble that is the free market? How about the chaos of the market making erratic and slow scientific progress?

like i said... it's tweaked free market.

there would be laws banning such things.

but, they wouldn't happen anyway: if the workers control the company, why would they raise prices of the things that they themselves buy?

and as far as scientific research goes: think of the cold war. the united states (free market) had vast technological improvements over the soviets (command economy), especially in consumer goods (we had better cars, computers, televisions, etc.). the soviet union's only technological improvements came in the form of industrial, military, and space travel equipment, and those lagged behind the US's by a long shot.


You know nothing of economics, both companies could easily require the same number of workers. What if one companay decides to automate its factories and still makes the same profit? Creating a rich and poor once again.

if one company advances its technology, the other will as well to stay in business. but automation would consume a large portion of that company's profit as well, and the return to the workers would shrink (at least, at first).

one of the concepts i didn't post was: freedom of information and technology.


It's based on a price system. I'm sure you're capable of reading up on technocracy to understand why a price system is a bad idea.

you still haven't explained how production pay is inefficient.

think about it: if i work harder, i'll make better money. with better money, i can buy the things i want. so therefore, i work harder. this is the definition of efficiency.



remember now... we are humans: we have more than just NEEDS - we also have WANTS.

Which can easily be provided in a state of abundance.

how will there be abundance if there is no incentive to produce?


Why not just have things we want provided? I think somone doesn't understand communism.

ok then: i bust ass all the time and get my job done double quick and then some. I want a space shuttle. give it to me. if all our wants are provided as well, then where the fuck is my space shuttle?


Representative democracy creates elites in the form of the representatives.

not if the representatives we're electing are workers just like us, except that they're politically minded workers.


Read my post, think about it a little before replying and then think to yourself "Oh right! THAT'S how! For the very reasons he stated in the sentence. What a cretin I've been! Now I'll become a communist.".

lmao. you haven't posted a single reason it would fail. as well, you haven't posted a single reason that it's not a form of socialism. in fact... i don't think you've posted anything important at all.

and by the way: I am a Communist. i joined the CPUSA Michigan chapter just recently, and april horton and john rummel actually agreed with most of my socialist ideas.


Then why did you declare taxation socialistic?

because every government (especially a workers' government) needs some means to maintain itself and protect the people.


Why do we a) Need a government, b) Need taxes to prop them up?

A) with no government, there will be no way to protect the citizenry (what if we created socialism in canada? the united states would invade before we even raise the red flag past half staff)

B) operations of government require funds just like everything else does.


That rests on the strange assumption that the only thing stopping us killing everyone is the government. Now I don't know about you but I've never had the following internal dialogue "Y'know if it weren't for laws I'd just rape that girl over there, and then murder everyone in that school over there.", your second problem is that people who do murder do it regardless of the existance of government.

i've never considered testing my skill as a rape artist, but i sure as hell have thought about killing. every time some yuppie retard talking on their phone cuts me off or almost hits me, i consider following them home and forcing them at gun point to eat their fucking children, uncooked and soaked in soy sauce, just so i could bludgeon them to death with the bones of their dead children afterward.

but i don't because our cops are relatively good at finding their wanted kill artists, and i don't want to get in trouble (i fucking hate lawyers).

AND

that's exactly a perfect reason to have government... some people commit murder whether the government is there or not (most of us don't BECAUSE the government is there)... someone kills someone else... we have the government to catch and punish them.


Why would anyone want to join your militia? Why would you want to form it?

why create a militia? i want things i don't have. why join? to get things you don't have. to have power. similar to the reasons people create and join gangs.

besides... with anarchy, there's also nothing stopping capitalists from taking over the world and further tightening the chains of exploitation.


a) You haven't explained why or how you would 'conquer' anything, where you would get this militia and what would be in it for them. b) The stages of government aren't the same as on the game 'civilisation'.

suppose i just feel like conquering everything (like hitler)... i start a militia with my friends, we acquire weapons, and take over (like hitler). no government to stop us, no laws to say we can't.

.... you wan't the world to fall under fascism? with no government to organise resistance, there will be no one to stop them...




Depends what you mean by that, If you mean in sense that more energy will be required to assurge a certian demand - then yes of course this goes without saying. However if you mean by supply and demand what you've thus far been spouting - i.e bourgeoise economism then no, you'll be in for a shock come the revolution.

once again: the bourgeois will not exist. What made you feel the need to mention this.

you mentioned bourgeois economic theory



what i mean by supply and demand is that: we, the consumer (and yes, in my system, also the producer), will always demand, and that we, the producer, will supply them. WE FUEL OUR OWN ECONOMY. it's not us buying things from them: it's us buying things from ourselves. As I thought, bourgeoise.

how does this have anything to do with women yuppies (bourgeoise)?


Bollocks. It's people like you who are our most insidious enemies, you destroy the idea of communism. You are simply proposing a new kind of capitalism.

like hell we are. we're bringing communism into the 21st century. if it weren't for communism's capability to evolve and be compatible with every situation that arises, it would have faded away a long time before the bolsheviks.


But it doesn't, it puts it in control of elected officials.

if puts the government in the hands of the people by direct democracy, and puts the economy in the hands of the people by putting the means of production under the control of the workingclass.


They were/are price system regulated market economies. They were trying to be distributive economies, but none have succeeded thanks to the insidious grip of the global free market (smash it up).

COMMAND economies always fail whether the free market exists alongside or not. think about it: the "communist" countries of the cold war (with their command economies) didn't trade with the "capitalist" countries (which have free markets). those command economies failed.

but if the "communist" countries had established free markets, the competition between the west and the east would have been greatly reduced )how can the "leader of the free world" claim to be protecting the freeworld by excluding other free nations?), and the communist economies would have been able to develop faster... i bet most of the world would have developed their own socialist systems (maybe even the usa too), and we'd have world socialism by now.


Straw man. Where did I say that it had to be a guy who didn't work? A distributive economoy would need to be presided over by no one.

what you're talking about is really called a command economy, and there's always someone in charge (especially in a command economy).

in my tweaked free market socialism, the person in charge would be all the people collectively (workers running the corporations, workers buying things (demand), workers making things (supply), communal ownership of property, etc.)


No it doesn't, it excists to distribute nothing, it is not a distributive economic model.

you simply don't understand how the economy works. you have these impossible ideas of a 'distributive economy,' which doesn't exist and can't exist (because if one were formed, it would quickly become another command economy), and either don't understand that traditional communism (with a 'dristributive' or command economy) and that modern communism (with a free market economy) has replaced this idea, or simply don't want to understand.


The distributive system exists to spread an abundance. Energy accounting can be used for the creation of "luxuries" (if you must characterise them as such).


i just said: how is there abundance if there is no incentive to produce? where is this abundance coming from?


The consumer is payng more for the product than it is actually worth. The definition of a rip off. Oh and if you propose paying the worker less they are exploited. Rock and a hard place for your system isn't it?

as i said, profits would be divided, half reinvested into the company to increase production, and the other half distributed to the workers. it is impossible to pay yourself too much for something that already paid you. it's the gift that keeps on giving, but this time everyone benefits, not just the bourgeois.


Energy Accounting, Distributive economies. Simply giving to each.

and who's going to hand the items out? who decides what i need? what if what i need is less than what i'm given?

and what about the things i want? like i said, if there's something that i want, i can have it right, because i work hard and contribute to the economy as much as i possible can?

that means that every single person in the world will live in a mansion, drive a benz, and so on. that means that i will have my very own space shuttle just because i want it. that means that, since i want a shark and an entire sea world to keep him in, i caqn have it because i bust my ass.

GYODDAMN... no wonder you stick to the dead form of communism so well.... it feeds all your dilusions so well.


THat's simply a liberal welfare state you're proposing.

no, it's actually a feasable method of providing the people with the direct benefit of REAL communism.


But you'd then interfere with the autonomy of the free market, making it no longer a free market. Beyond that remeeber as they have a profit insentive the corruption will often be far more tempting, especially if they can bribe government officials.

first of all: it's tweaked free market socialism. it has to have some constraints.

second: the government officials don't make the laws, they just propose them. we the people decide if the proposal becomes law or not.


I meant what is the objective numerical measurment? Or are you suggesting it's all simply subjective according to one local government's estimatian of 'good living conditions'.

it is whatever standards the people of that commune decide to pass and have written into that community's law documents.


Take it to a capitalist community, it will be appreaciated more by the other enemies of socialism.

lmao. what capitalist will support having their companies taken away from them and put into the hands of the working class? what capitalist will support having to be integrated into the working class? what capitalist will support having to actually get down and earn all of the luxuries he has? what capitalist will support direct democracy?

but then again... you have a flawed idea of what socialism is... i suppose a flawed idea of what capitalism is would go hand in hand with that...


THe revolution is neither a dinner party nor a battle for the moral high ground. It is the emancipation of my class for which I am willing to fight. Fight the cultural revolution then the physical revolution.

i had this discussion with violencia.proletariat a long time ago: we can't just jump into a violent revolution...

and we sure as hell just can't go and kill every dissenter.

we have to gain the support of the mass of the people first, use what little democracy exists here to gain a few minor posts in the government, then use our power as a united working class to weaken the economy and throw the bourgeois into a panic while we continue to gain power in the government...

then hit them with a full-scale militia revolution: by then, the country will be so weak, it'll just fall into our hands, and the government will be too divided to stop us.


Do you blame me? You argue like a bourgeoise politician and you have come up with the stupidist form of capitalism I've heard of in my life.

GOT YOU.

let's suppose what i'm talking about here is actually capitalism (which, it obviously is NOT, as i said... what capitalist would............).... but for a minute, let's pretend that what i propose is actually a form of capitalism....

JAZZRATT PROPOSES THAT THERE ARE LESS STUPID FORMS OF CAPITALISM. . . . lsd.... get him!!!

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

ZX3, please read this closely. i will answer all your questions to the best of my ability and defend the socialist status of my theory (i posted it primarily because i want to defend it)


You can call the economy what you want, but it will not be substantially different than the capitalist environment. So far, the other socialists on these boards seem not to find it as an acceptable form of socialism.
HOW do the workers work together in a socilaist community? In what way is it different?


i don't understand how you can consider it the same as capitalism, or even close, for that matter. capitalism puts the ownership of the means of production in the hands of the individual investor.

for one thing, my theory creates socialism in the economy by putting the means of production under the control of the workers. for another, capitalism lets people and corporation own our homes. my theory creates communism by putting the ownership of our homes in the hands of the community as a whole - with capitalism, the rich have the biggest homes, with my theory, those who need the biggest homes have the biggest homes.

the workers work together as a socialist community to operate their respective corporations to benefit the whole group of workers (as opposed to capitalism, where the workers work together to serve the company owner, who operate the business to best benefit themselves and themselves only.


How are the houses distributed? What is the determination for building them?

as i said, the homes are distributed to compensate the needs of the people occupying them. for example: let's suppose i am married, have 3 children, and one on the way. naturally, i will need a large home so my family can live in comfort - my community will provide a relatively large house that is somewhat close to where i work. but, let's suppose i'm single with no children. as a bachelor, i won't need anything larger than a one bedroom apartment. but, on the other hand, let's suppose i'm single, but my parents are old, retired, and somewhat incapable of taking care of themselves - i will need a small 2 bedroom home or a large apartment at ground level.

as far as building new houses, these will be built to compensate the future needs of the community. let's suppose, in my commune, 4 people have recently gotten married, and are planning on having children, and another couple has their second child on the way. this means that we will need one new 3 bedroom house and one new 2 bedroom house - the couple with their second child on the way will move into the new 3 bedroom house after it has been constructed, one of the recently married couples will occupy the home that the first couple moved out of, and the other recently married couple will occupy the new 2 bedroom house.

it's alot more complicated than this, of course... but that is why i believe only communism can work to properly compensate the people's shelter needs: communism exists very successfully in small communes where the people can come together in councils and make these decisions.


One of the issues I have had with socioalists on these boards has been either their inability or unwillingness to describe how a socialist community will function. Your proposal is an aatempt, but basically you are stating that if the workers own the means of production, everything else can stay the same. That is not socialism.

not so.

i propose we create a classless society (which, i do accept will take time). everyone will be workers with a specific duty.

i propose we communalise property (if we don't have to pay rents, we (everybody, because everyone will be essentially equally wealthy, with a small difference between the highly productive and the unproductive) will have a far greater portion of our income to devote to the items and activities we enjoy. with the current capitalist form of society we have, most of the people have to use most of their income to pay their bills, and only the wealthy can truly enjoy the luxuries of the amerikkan lifestyle. with my socialist system, there won't be poor or wealthy people, and no body will have excessive bills (such as their house payments, property taxes, etc.), so everyone will have the same access to luxuries that are acurrently reserved for the rich.

i propose that our basic needs are taken care of (especially food). i think that basic food supplies (like bread, milk, cereal, eggs, etc.) should be free to everyone without rationing - the government uses taxes (collected equally from everyone) to pay for the production of such needs, and make them available for free.


Here is a weakness with the proposal:

let's hear it


You are only proposing to regulate the price of certain items. But those items need to purchase goods and service in its production (the production of bread does not only need farmers, it needs trucks to distribute the bread, some sort of wrap to be placed aropund the bread, machinery to produce the bread, cleaning supplies, fuesl ect)

i have already considered this. i feel that the best way to take care of this is for the government to use our tax money to cover production (i do realise this is similar to command economies, but as i said before, this is tweaked free market socialism - not pure free market, but enough free market to retain the same luxury the bourgeois has today). as well, i believe that the government should be small - do away with things like huge military spending, space travel, espionage, etc., and we'll have more than enough funds to cover it.


If the socilaist community is to be free market, it means that the producers of those items, if they are nort deemed to be essential, can charge what somebody else wil pay. If the bread producers price is fixed, it make tougher for the bread producer to purchase those items. So the bread producer either cuts back production of bread OR does not purchase as much of other items.

this here is actually the first change i've made to my idea.

i changed it from fixed prices on food to free food provided by taxes.

as for companies selling things at whatever price the people are willing to pay... the free market itself will take care of that: if car company A is charging way too much for their car because they know the people will pay it, car company B will lower their prices and bring in way better business, forcing car company A to lower their prices (and i think that there should be laws to protect fair business practice).

but also consider this: if the workers control the company... why would they raise the prices? for one thing, if they raise prices, they'll lose business and their overall monthly production dividends will drop (remember, i said that profits should go back to the worker directly). secondly, there is a good chance that the workers of that company buy the products that their company produces: they would avoid raising prices because they will ultimately have to pay these prices as well.


You have suggested subsidising the bread manufacturer. But that still poses a problem. Because the obnly way to subsidise the breasd people is by taking the money through taxes from industries which are profitable and successful (thus most likely from those industries not subject to price regulatiion and otherwise are engaging in feree market. But this means that those successful industries have less money to expand and be successful

but if every company is paying an equal portion of their total income (let's suppose company A makes 1,000 $ profit per year, and have to pay 300, but company B makes 10,000 $ profit per year, they have to pay 3,000. the rest is divided between each worker and reinvested back into the company), it will work out equally well for both large and small industries, because each company has an equal proportion of their income to reinvest and expand.


The proposal would also require the employment of numbers of beauracrats whose job it will be to process the paperwork to get the money to the bread folks, who would have the money anyhow without the middlemann, save for the price regulation

as for the actual set-up of overall government, i haven't completely worked all the kinks our yet.

i somewhat like the idea that violencia.proletariat proposed: no government larger than a small region (such as a state). this will, nonetheless, require a certain ammount of bureaucracy, but far less than with an entire nation made up of smaller states.

trouble is: these bureaucracies will have to exist (command economy or free market) - capitalist free market is the only socioeconomic system that manages to avoid bureaucracy (trouble is: look at what it costs the mass of the people). however, i still don't like the idea of some stuffed-suit deciding what to make, when to make it, where to make it, how to make it, how much, etc. - i think that even this bureaucracy should treat this sector of the economy like a regular corporation (except that they're not in it for profit).


There can be no half measures to creating socialism. Socialism is cold, it is bloody, it is violent. People who claim the contrary are simply wrong.

although i will agree that the PATH TO socialism will be strewed with blood, violence, and pain, i must disagree that socialism itself is: how is it cold, bloody, or violent to empower the working class?

...

just keep in mind that I am just proposing that socialism can support a free market economy. i'm sure several different kinds of economies can exist under socialism - as long as the workers are at the core of control over the means of production, it is still socialism; i personally just think that socialism with free trade would work out best.

[CrazyModerate]

I see the original poster's system as a stepping stone towards communism. I think if we got to where he wanted to go (business owned by workers within a capitalist system), it would not stop there. This kind of thing would likely lead toward communism.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 11:26 pm
I see the original poster's system as a stepping stone towards communism. I think if we got to where he wanted to go (business owned by workers within a capitalist system), it would not stop there. This kind of thing would likely lead toward communism.
this is what i'm trying to point out: it's not a socialist structure within a capitalist system. the free market is not limited to just capitalism.

i believe it is a stage of development that is a form of communism (it's a liberal vs moderate vs conservative thing - the way i see it, leftist theory has its degrees too: a liberal communist is somewhat inbetween our democrats and the social-democrats of most european countries, a moderate communist is like me, and a conservative communist is like jizzratt). liberal communists would prefer to establish a society that is somewhere in between democratic socialism (like germany and sweden) and modern socialism (doesn't exist anywhere). we moderate communists would prefer to create a socioeconomic system based on a modern communist structure. conmservative communists would prefer to create a communist society based more on traditional marxist thought (which was very well structured thought for that time, but, if instituted now, would cause a rollback to our current progress.

essentially all the basic elements of communism are present: a classless society,worker control of the means of production, collective ownership of property, etc. the only major concept that i felt needed to be revised was this: the marxist thought that the government would eventually dissappear because it lose its utility. this, i believe, fails to address the problem of protection - we need to empower people with the sole duty of protecting us from both ourselves (every society will have criminals) and outside forces (such as neighbours who disagree with our socialist ways or capitalists who want to go back to the old way).

but, i agree with you to this extent:

we will put the sole power in the hands of the people. if the people want to convert to a more traditional form of communism, they can - the people will have control of the economy, the social institutions, and the government, so the will of the people will always prevail.

and as for the possibility of reverting to capitalism... i'm not worried about it. this system will benefit the entire populus (with the exception of the ultrabourgeois class, such as bill gates and ted turner, which will ultimately cease to exist via their integration into the class, the one remaining class: the workingclass), and put all the power in the hands of the people as a whole (as opposed to capitalism: only the bourgeois benefit and hold power).

i guarantee the majority of the people will not favour going back to capitalism after they see how socialism benefits their life.

i would love to discuss this further, if you don't mind...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 01, 2006 10:10 pm

I was talking about controlling the market so as to allow abundance, you silly wanker.

abundance comes with efficiency. command economy (where the market is controlled by an external organisation (such as the government) destroys efficiency.
No it doesn't. (see how swiftly things get boring if you don't back up your claims - so I suggest you do some serious backing up, motherfucker.)



The market is part of capitalism and all other price systems

you misunderstand capitalism and its relation to the free market.

capitalism employs the free market, but communism/socialism can as well. the only difference is in the essence of the socioeconomic system.

free market capitalism: individuals control the means of production.
free market socialism: workers control the means of production. You're proposing mainting a price system, which is the single most ineffeciant method of distributing resources (though it is the most effeciant at selling and depleting them).




the freemarket simply says that we can sell, trade, and buy whatever we want whenever we want in whatever quantity we want at whatever price we want.
That is capitalism and the price system, you stupid ****.

first: i reported you again. Remember how well that went last time, pisspipe?
refrain from insults and vulgarities, and debate the topic at hand in an intelligent manner. Nah, I prefer my substance over style personally. But I can tell you like to hide behind a veneer of pretentious pseudo intellectualism.


second (READ THIS CLOSELY): so, what you're saying is that, having the freedom to buy, sell, and trade what we want only exists in capitalism? Yes I am, because buying, selling and trading are fucking capitalist notions. YOu stupid fucknut.


so it would logically follow that, since communism is the opposite of capitalism, we would therefore not have the freedom to buy, sell, or trade under a communist system? By jove, there may be a brain whirring away in that thick skull of yours.


if that were true, communism would be synonymous with dictatorship - a form of complete control over every aspect of the peoples' lives. Mr.brain appears to have ground to a halt at this point. This rather fallacious statement assumes that people will somehow magically lose all ability to do what they want the moment they can't buy or sell anything. As if markets were freedom.


lucky for us, it's not: communist theory, in fact, promotes just the exact opposite of that: a life free from control (yes, my friend, even freedom to buy, sell, and trade as we wish) It does not propose 'freedom' to buy, sell or trade as it recognises the anti-egalitarian nature of these actions, also when buying, selling and trading is impossible laws preventing it are no more oppresive than laws banning people from walking on the cielings.



You still haven't shown what happens when one company creates a dominant monopoy as is bound to happen in any genuinley free market. Also what stops your elected representatives becoming corrupt and greedy?

first off: anti-monopoly laws (they exist just about everywhere). Are inherntily anti-free market, you ****bag.


second: direct democracy.

the elected representatives should exist only to propose new laws and law changes. the people should ultimately have control over whether or not these proposals become laws. Sounds like needless bereacracy, it also sounds os open to corruption that it's unbelievable. Makes me think of that Stalin quote "He that votes has no power. He that counts the votes has all the power."
but also i believe that each community should have separate law charters, and each respectively vote as to whether proposals become law in their specific community So if someone travelled somwhere that had (for example) outlawed the colour blue, and didn't know this they would be immediatly punished? Sounds like a great way to create isolated comunities.
(for example: if a michigan representative proposes legalising marijuana... the elected representatives vote if it can be a temporary change or not (until the next ballot). they decide not to legalise it for michigan. when the next ballot is drawn up, the proposed change is on there. well, the commune that i live in (central lansing) decides that the change will be written into our charter (that marijuana WILL be legalised), but the the next commune over (north lansing) decides not to ratify the proposed change (deciding that marijuana will remain illegal). this is real democracy: the people have control) So you propose a socialism whereby concepts like 'michigan' have a meaning? It's sounding more and more like the current system by the minute. Moreover you've just brought up the question that is always put to direct democrats such as yourself: Is it right for the majority to limit the freedoms of a minority in such a way? If there must be laws, why must they be decided by a group of people who may not have the knowledge to make a descision based on common sense? Direct democracy should only be used in cases that do not result in the limiting of freedoms or production amounts.



Come back when you know more than simply one basic tenet of socialism.

can't think of any of those witty responces with which you adorn this discussion board so well? Can't read marx? Why don't you fuck off?



We need not "earn" anything.

so then everyone deserves a german luxury car, a yacht, a personal jet, a mansion, and the most exquisite wine in the world? Yes. Not everyone is going to take them though, are they? I for example, hate the sea and have no use for yacht, I can't drive so the german car is out of the question, I don't have any desire for a jet and I don't require all the space in a mansion - so from all that I simply get the wine. How many people, really, would want that stuff under socialism? Remember this is post-revolution.
are you saying that, even though i work twice as hard and twice as fast as most of my fellow lumpers, that i don't deserve some sort of reward for it? Yes, yes I am.


you don't work, do you? I was recently fired but I mostly do warehouse work, why?





What you describe is pretty much syndicalism, except you're hanging on to some wild idea that wer need the concept of 'buissinesses'. We don't, they do nothing for us and are a result of the price system, of which the market economy is a part. Market economies, like the price system are complete shit.

syndicalism is a root of the workers movement.

Interesting argument, care to expand?

syndicalism is one of many good ideas involved with the labour movement. i see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented in a socialist society: let the workers form unions, and let those unions run some of their members for government positions. not only will the workers control the means of production, they'll have a good solid hold on the government as well, which will give the workers the power to decide if they want to push even further toward traditional communism (the oldcore variety you seem to like) or remain in a modern state of socialism with communistic social structures (my theory). Right, but why hang on to the idea of bussinesses? Why propose this 'market' crap in the first place, what is wrong with pure syndicalism without any of the capitalism?



Feudalism brought us to the modern world way back when, but guess what it wasn't "there to stay", nor is your capitalism.

explain to me how feudalism crafted modernity. Tell me, what do you think of when I say 'Historical Materialism'. Also I never said it 'crafted' modernity, I said it brought us to the point of 'modern' and collapsed.


and: where have i said that capitalism is here to stay? Your the one claiming the capitalist notions of the free market, the price system (and therefore the wage system) are 'here to stay'.
i have clearly pointed out that capitalism (control of the means of production BY individuals FOR personal gain) will give way to socialism (control of the means of production BY the workers FOR the gain of society as a whole) Capitalism goes beyond your weak anylisis, for example your new system is capitalist because it proposes maintaining capital, and no matter who owns capital, if the idea of capital still exists - guess what system you have.



You propose liberalism?

no, liberalism only encourages simple concessions to the working class like raises and benefits packages. i encourage an entire restructuring of society on a socialist basis. YOu really don't. You're proposing basically liberalism, maybe painted a little red, but liberalism none the less.The Free Market for example is part of the capitalist school of thought named 'Liberalism'



You're an idiot.

aw, how childish of you. Not nearly as childish as your idiotic and puerile notion that the free market is compatible with socialism.



What if a company creates a monoply by price gouging? What if a company simply loses out on the great gamble that is the free market? How about the chaos of the market making erratic and slow scientific progress?

like i said... it's tweaked free market. So it isn't a free market. For the whaterverth time.


there would be laws banning such things. And if Michigan voted against these laws?


but, they wouldn't happen anyway: if the workers control the company, why would they raise prices of the things that they themselves buy? Because as they raise those prices, they get more money. That and what if they choose to produce things they don't want for that very reason? If I started a company that made yachts wit ha bunch of my mates and we made sure that we started our company in an area with a scarcity of yachts therefore able to make our yachts real expensive. We'd reap the profits and never buy any yachts and therefore have no need to keep a cap on our prices.


and as far as scientific research goes: think of the cold war. the united states (free market) had vast technological improvements over the soviets (command economy), especially in consumer goods (we had better cars, computers, televisions, etc.). Bollocks, the US simply economically beat the USSR - and this was not so much to do with the system as it was to do with material conditions in russia, which had just jumped from feudalism to socialism meaning that it was at a disadvantadge, also taking into account the famine and so on. Then of course there was the fact that the US suffered very little during WWII, whereas Russia was utterly raped. So your claims hold no water.
the soviet union's only technological improvements came in the form of industrial, military, and space travel equipment, and those lagged behind the US's by a long shot. Bullshit, They were far more advanced in areas of industry and space travel. Also if you take into account rate rather than actual technology they beat the shit out of the US, especially under Stalin's ten year plan. If they hadn't been betrayed by khurshchev then they could easily have outstripped the US in a matter of years.



You know nothing of economics, both companies could easily require the same number of workers. What if one companay decides to automate its factories and still makes the same profit? Creating a rich and poor once again.

if one company advances its technology, the other will as well to stay in business. but automation would consume a large portion of that company's profit as well, and the return to the workers would shrink (at least, at first). Bullshit, automation is cheaper than paying wages.


one of the concepts i didn't post was: freedom of information and technology. What if one company doesn't want to share, and the area in which is based votes to keep the technology, because they are reaping the benefits of living with the largest monoply?



It's based on a price system. I'm sure you're capable of reading up on technocracy to understand why a price system is a bad idea.

you still haven't explained how production pay is inefficient. Did you bother to read up on technocracy?


think about it: if i work harder, i'll make better money. with better money, i can buy the things i want. so therefore, i work harder. this is the definition of efficiency. If that worked as a calcuation why isn't everyone working as hard as they can under the wage system?




remember now... we are humans: we have more than just NEEDS - we also have WANTS.

Which can easily be provided in a state of abundance.

how will there be abundance if there is no incentive to produce? Ah but there is, the abundance.



Why not just have things we want provided? I think somone doesn't understand communism.

ok then: i bust ass all the time and get my job done double quick and then some. I want a space shuttle. give it to me. if all our wants are provided as well, then where the fuck is my space shuttle? Do you actually have a desire for a space shuttle, does anyone and also een if you can find one example of such a person you've got to remember that the world will be as radically different from today post-revolution as today is from feudalism. Basically you're constructing a stupid strawman of which you should be ashamed. Now fucking die of ebola.



Representative democracy creates elites in the form of the representatives.

not if the representatives we're electing are workers just like us, except that they're politically minded workers. They are no less elites.



Read my post, think about it a little before replying and then think to yourself "Oh right! THAT'S how! For the very reasons he stated in the sentence. What a cretin I've been! Now I'll become a communist.".

lmao. you haven't posted a single reason it would fail. as well, you haven't posted a single reason that it's not a form of socialism. in fact... i don't think you've posted anything important at all. Haha. So obviously you haven't read my fucking posts, oh well.


and by the way: I am a Communist. No you aren't. Saying "I'm a communist" doesn't make it so. If I said "I am napolean" it wouldn't make me napolean.
i joined the CPUSA Good for you. They aren't really what I'd call communists. They're a stupid reformist party.
Michigan chapter just recently, and april horton and john rummel actually agreed with most of my socialist ideas. Who the fuck is april horton? And who in the name of my testicles is john rummel? Whoever they are they're not communist. Even if they claim differently, they're as communist as pol-pot.



Then why did you declare taxation socialistic?

because every government (especially a workers' government) needs some means to maintain itself and protect the people. This doesn't make it a socialist principle.



Why do we a) Need a government, b) Need taxes to prop them up?

A) with no government, there will be no way to protect the citizenry (what if we created socialism in canada? the united states would invade before we even raise the red flag past half staff) The United States could do what it wanted, if it invaded Canada then I assume the Canadians would organise a geurilla defense. No need for a government. (I still haven't seen you make a decent argument against anarchy, as a non0anarchist I must say it's depressing how stupid you are.)


B) operations of government require funds just like everything else does. Under a price system, yes.



That rests on the strange assumption that the only thing stopping us killing everyone is the government. Now I don't know about you but I've never had the following internal dialogue "Y'know if it weren't for laws I'd just rape that girl over there, and then murder everyone in that school over there.", your second problem is that people who do murder do it regardless of the existance of government.

i've never considered testing my skill as a rape artist, but i sure as hell have thought about killing. And what stopped you was a law against killing? I find that hard to believe.
every time some yuppie retard talking on their phone cuts me off or almost hits me, i consider following them home and forcing them at gun point to eat their fucking children, uncooked and soaked in soy sauce, just so i could bludgeon them to death with the bones of their dead children afterward. No you don't.


but i don't because our cops are relatively good at finding their wanted kill artists, and i don't want to get in trouble (i fucking hate lawyers). 'Kill artists'. Dude you'll never been any kind of artist other than a fucking piss artist.


that's exactly a perfect reason to have government... some people commit murder whether the government is there or not (most of us don't BECAUSE the government is there) Most of us don't because we never really want to. We might want to hit somone but no well balanced member of any species ever wants to murder another.
... someone kills someone else... we have the government to catch and punish them. Doesn't make the person they kill any less dead does it?



Why would anyone want to join your militia? Why would you want to form it?

why create a militia? i want things i don't have. why join? to get things you don't have. to have power. similar to the reasons people create and join gangs. What things? Why don't you simply go to the nearest collective and ask for those things?


besides... with anarchy, there's also nothing stopping capitalists from taking over the world and further tightening the chains of exploitation. Most anarchists support a sort of worldwide anarchy which makes it impossibly for capitalists to do much of anything.



a) You haven't explained why or how you would 'conquer' anything, where you would get this militia and what would be in it for them. b) The stages of government aren't the same as on the game 'civilisation'.

suppose i just feel like conquering everything (like hitler) YOu don't know a lot about Hitler or his motivations do you?
... i start a militia with my friends, we acquire weapons, and take over (like hitler). no government to stop us, no laws to say we can't. Plenty of pissed of anachists though, they also have guns. Do the mathematics.


.... you wan't the world to fall under fascism? with no government to organise resistance, there will be no one to stop them... What stops people opposing them? Do people just become doormats without the leading hand of a government?


you mentioned bourgeois economic theory You used it.




what i mean by supply and demand is that: we, the consumer (and yes, in my system, also the producer), will always demand, and that we, the producer, will supply them. WE FUEL OUR OWN ECONOMY. it's not us buying things from them: it's us buying things from ourselves. As I thought, bourgeoise.

how does this have anything to do with women yuppies (bourgeoise)? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know what bourgeoise means? Because if you think it means female yuppy then you know NOTHING about even the basics of socialism, and I'm sure if you told your 'communist' party that you thought bougeoise meant femal yuppy then they would kick you out (assuming of course they're communists).



Bollocks. It's people like you who are our most insidious enemies, you destroy the idea of communism. You are simply proposing a new kind of capitalism.

like hell we are. we're bringing communism into the 21st century. You're bringing it to a capitalist 21st century, all your ideas of the "21st century" are bourgeoise capitalist constructions. McCarthy would be proud of the way you're destroying communism.
if it weren't for communism's capability to evolve and be compatible with every situation that arises, it would have faded away a long time before the bolsheviks. Actually it didn't change much between marx and lenin. If you had been a bolshevic you'd probably be writing a book entitled "Communism & The Tsar" in which you argue that we can have Tsars and Communism in the same system.



But it doesn't, it puts it in control of elected officials.

if puts the government in the hands of the people by direct democracy, and puts the economy in the hands of the people by putting the means of production under the control of the workingclass. Then why do you have these 'elected' representatives. You can't have it both ways.



They were/are price system regulated market economies. They were trying to be distributive economies, but none have succeeded thanks to the insidious grip of the global free market (smash it up).

COMMAND economies always fail whether the free market exists alongside or not. think about it: the "communist" countries of the cold war (with their command economies) didn't trade with the "capitalist" countries (which have free markets). those command economies failed. Of course they did, because they refused to bow down capitalist free market imperialism, they paid the price for being communist - next time around we will be sure not to fail. Next time, by thee way, if you're still about you'll be up against the wall.


but if the "communist" countries had established free markets, the competition between the west and the east would have been greatly reduced )how can the "leader of the free world" claim to be protecting the freeworld by excluding other free nations?), and the communist economies would have been able to develop faster... i bet most of the world would have developed their own socialist systems (maybe even the usa too), and we'd have world socialism by now. We wouldn't have world socialism by now, we would have capitalism. Because we'd have bowed down to free market imperailsm. We would just be capitalists under dictators.



Straw man. Where did I say that it had to be a guy who didn't work? A distributive economoy would need to be presided over by no one.

what you're talking about is really called a command economy, and there's always someone in charge (especially in a command economy). Yes, I know full well what the bourgeoise call distributive systems.


in my tweaked free market socialism, the person in charge would be all the people collectively (workers running the corporations, workers buying things (demand), workers making things (supply), communal ownership of property, etc.) No it wouldn't. It would be ever first found a way around your regulations.



No it doesn't, it excists to distribute nothing, it is not a distributive economic model.

you simply don't understand how the economy works. This would be the bourgeoise economy with which you're so enamored?
you have these impossible ideas of a 'distributive economy,' which doesn't exist and can't exist Remeber that feudalists thought that the first free marketeers were thinking of 'impossible' things.
(because if one were formed, it would quickly become another command economy), The words 'command economy' have no real meaning and were inveneted entirelty by capitalist "philosophers" and bourgeoise economists to scare people into believing they couldn't be free under a distributive system.
and either don't understand that traditional communism (with a 'dristributive' or command economy) and that modern communism (with a free market economy) has replaced this idea, or simply don't want to understand. It's funny that you say this 'modern communism' which has, so far, 3 supporters that I know of has replaced marxism which has millions worldwide. See my understanding is that for a theory to replace another it has to be in the position with millions rather than the one that isn't even if cuking double digits. All the communists, socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, technocrats and anarcho-communists I've ever talked to (and that is a very large number) all oppose the free market, which seems to me to indicate that modern communism has only changed from old communism in the things it has to critisise.



The distributive system exists to spread an abundance. Energy accounting can be used for the creation of "luxuries" (if you must characterise them as such).


i just said: how is there abundance if there is no incentive to produce? where is this abundance coming from? FUCKING READ THIS, FOR FUCK'S SAKE, YOU MOUTH BREATHING **** (http://www.technocracyeurope.eu/)



The consumer is payng more for the product than it is actually worth. The definition of a rip off. Oh and if you propose paying the worker less they are exploited. Rock and a hard place for your system isn't it?

as i said, profits would be divided, half reinvested into the company to increase production, and the other half distributed to the workers. it is impossible to pay yourself too much for something that already paid you. it's the gift that keeps on giving, but this time everyone benefits, not just the bourgeois. A very nice paragraph, a shame it had fuck all to do with what I wrote.



Energy Accounting, Distributive economies. Simply giving to each.

and who's going to hand the items out? who decides what i need? what if what i need is less than what i'm given? Why do you know so little about communism?


and what about the things i want? What about them?


that means that every single person in the world will live in a mansion, drive a benz, and so on. No it doesn't. Some people don't like Benz's for a start. You're also ignoring the fact this will be post-revolution. That includes a cultural revolution, wherby this reactionary thinking will become as old fashioned as the idea of lords and tithes.
that means that i will have my very own space shuttle just because i want it. But you don't want one, even now. You lying sack of shit.
that means that, since i want a shark and an entire sea world to keep him in, i caqn have it because i bust my ass. We'd probably lock you up in a nice mental home. Although what you want is acedemic as you're the kind of vile counter revolutionary that deserves a few .22 rounds distributed evenely around your face.


GYODDAMN... no wonder you stick to the dead form of communism so well.... it feeds all your dilusions so well. You know fuck all about communism. Don't post again until you do.



THat's simply a liberal welfare state you're proposing.

no, it's actually a feasable method of providing the people with the direct benefit of REAL communism. BUT IT IS NOT REAL COMMUNISM. It's like somone giving you quorn and claiming it is "providing you with the direct benift of REAL meat", patently ludicrous.



But you'd then interfere with the autonomy of the free market, making it no longer a free market. Beyond that remeeber as they have a profit insentive the corruption will often be far more tempting, especially if they can bribe government officials.

first of all: it's tweaked free market socialism. it has to have some constraints.

second: the government officials don't make the laws, they just propose them. we the people decide if the proposal becomes law or not. And how safe from corruption are the people counting the votes? After all, with money there is always an incetive for crimes like stealing or bribery - and with bribery all kinds of corruption is possible.



I meant what is the objective numerical measurment? Or are you suggesting it's all simply subjective according to one local government's estimatian of 'good living conditions'.

it is whatever standards the people of that commune decide to pass and have written into that community's law documents. How does this translate into an objective measurment? Also who does the inspecting?



Take it to a capitalist community, it will be appreaciated more by the other enemies of socialism.

lmao. what capitalist will support having their companies taken away from them and put into the hands of the working class? Many kinds, liberals mainly.
what capitalist will support having to be integrated into the working class? I know a few (ideologically) capitalists workers.
what capitalist will support having to actually get down and earn all of the luxuries he has? All of them. They all claim to have earned them after all.
what capitalist will support direct democracy? Fucking loads of them, many capitalist ideologies support direct democracy. Most liberal and libertarian ideas are given to this way of thinking.


but then again... you have a flawed idea of what socialism is... i suppose a flawed idea of what capitalism is would go hand in hand with that... HAHA. I have the flawed idea of what socialism is? This coming from the guy who think they can have the free market in a socialist system?
By the way, ellipses is entirely unessecary in the sentence you just typed, it makes you look uneducated.



THe revolution is neither a dinner party nor a battle for the moral high ground. It is the emancipation of my class for which I am willing to fight. Fight the cultural revolution then the physical revolution.

i had this discussion with violencia.proletariat a long time ago: we can't just jump into a violent revolution... No shit, but there will be one.


and we sure as hell just can't go and kill every dissenter. Yes we can, by the time it is right for revolution it will only mean killing around a million people - give or take a couple of thousand (That's worldwide - meaning some nations won't even get to kill them some cappies)


we have to gain the support of the mass of the people first, Wow, you've said somethiong correct.
use what little democracy exists here to gain a few minor posts in the government, No, that's a waste of time with reformism.
then use our power as a united working class to weaken the economy and throw the bourgeois into a panic while we continue to gain power in the government... Bullshit, that would just allow reaction to grow. It would as likley end in fasicsm.


then hit them with a full-scale militia revolution: by then, the country will be so weak, it'll just fall into our hands, and the government will be too divided to stop us. Nice dream, shame it won't work.



Do you blame me? You argue like a bourgeoise politician and you have come up with the stupidist form of capitalism I've heard of in my life.

GOT YOU.

let's suppose what i'm talking about here is actually capitalism (which, it obviously is NOT, as i said... what capitalist would............) One - yes it is capitalsim, as most people on this board understand, by the way elipses requires only three dots, that train of dots serves no purpose.
.... but for a minute, let's pretend that what i propose is actually a form of capitalism.... Ah but you see it IS a form of fucking capitalism.


JAZZRATT PROPOSES THAT THERE ARE LESS STUPID FORMS OF CAPITALISM. Yes, and? Everyone on this board does. That doesn't mean we think there is a *not* stupid form of capitalism, we just recognise that there is a *least* stupid (which is still stupid, maybe a little more so than primitivism)
. . . . lsd.... get him!!! Aww, are you bitter that our policy of restricting capitalists got you restricted?

Now piss off, troll.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

No it doesn't. (see how swiftly things get boring if you don't back up your claims - so I suggest you do some serious backing up, motherfucker.)

well then, i tell you what... if you explain how the economy of north korea is efficient, and i won't have to 'back myself up'


You're proposing mainting a price system, which is the single most ineffeciant method of distributing resources (though it is the most effeciant at selling and depleting them).

i propose using the price/wage system only to distribute non-necessity consumer goods (like electronics, bling necklaces, etc.). as far as necessities go, i already explained those would be distributed as the society needs for free (but i propose having a worker council in charge of the distribution process - the government could become quickly corrupted with such power).

our needs are met, and we can meet our own wants. and what's more, since no person will have to worry about supplying their necessities, they will be able to fully reap the benefits of their hard work in the form of their immensely increased ability to purchase consumer goods.


Yes I am, because buying, selling and trading are fucking capitalist notions. YOu stupid fucknut.

so... if "communists" like you weould take away our freedom to trade with one another... what other freedoms will you take from your fellow workers? will speech go next, since with free speech, we progressive communists might bring up the idea of reëstablishment of free trade?

and... i can't ever remember a time before today that a communist proposed TAKING a freedom AWAY, rather than granting it.



first off: anti-monopoly laws (they exist just about everywhere).
Are inherntily anti-free market, you ****bag.

like i said... it would not be pure free market economy. remember... in a completely free market, people have to pay for their homes, food, education, health care, utilities, etc. i never said a purely free market economy... just one that makes the things we want available to us so we can benefit from our hard work by fullfilling our human materialistic nature


Sounds like needless bereacracy, it also sounds os open to corruption that it's unbelievable. Makes me think of that Stalin quote "He that votes has no power. He that counts the votes has all the power."

how is there corruption in a real democracy? the politicians aren't the ones with the power, only the people.


So if someone travelled somwhere that had (for example) outlawed the colour blue, and didn't know this they would be immediatly punished? Sounds like a great way to create isolated comunities.

first of all: ignorance is innocence. suppose a 19 year old canadian from ontario comes to visit the USA, and tries to buy booze. he's not going to be punished, but rather informed.

plus, i think anyone who is traveling outside their community should know the laws that exist where they are going.

as well... generally, the people of a specific region tend to think alike (such as: michigan is a state with alot of hunters/fishermen, and so are ohio and indiana), so law differences between one commune and the next would be minimal.


So you propose a socialism whereby concepts like 'michigan' have a meaning? It's sounding more and more like the current system by the minute. Moreover you've just brought up the question that is always put to direct democrats such as yourself: Is it right for the majority to limit the freedoms of a minority in such a way? If there must be laws, why must they be decided by a group of people who may not have the knowledge to make a descision based on common sense? Direct democracy should only be used in cases that do not result in the limiting of freedoms or production amounts.

michigan would mean nothing more than the mitten-shaped state. the larger the region gets, the more centralised and bureaucratic the government will become (that's why i like the idea of having minor governments, made up of working class people, with *very limited* control over only a specific community). this allows each person the ability to participate in the government. in large populations, democracy fades quickly, and the result is having to elect representatives to make the choices for us. the state/province would exist only to define a region, not to govern it, and the nation would serve the same purpose.

i personally feel that national borders exist primarily to separate the people and to give governments another reason to fight. if i'm crossing from canada into amerikka, there is no difference except that there are different people in charge on each side of the border.



are you saying that, even though i work twice as hard and twice as fast as most of my fellow lumpers, that i don't deserve some sort of reward for it? Yes, yes I am.

and, as i said... it's people like you who are dooming communism to remain a theory forever.

i guarantee that the workers will not go for it - if you propose taking away the benefit that should come from hard work, you'll lose their support. if you don't have the workers' support, you have no support period.


I was recently fired but I mostly do warehouse work, why?

certainly a lumper should understand the need for production pay. if you work hard, you're rewarded well, and this helps the entire community in the end (if i unload as fast and as hardcore as possible (which i do because the more i unload the more i make), i am helping the entire team get all the scheduled trucks done quickly so we can get our production bonuses - the company i work for gives us yearly bonuses for increased production).

and look at it like this: i make more money than my boss AND his boss. i've made just under 39,000 this year, and at my current rate (about 165$ per day), i'm looking to make about 42,000$ this year. my boss is paid production (allowed up to 300$/week) and a salary of 29,000 something - he'll make about 33,000 this year, and his boss is paid salary of 37,000. i have the benefit of production pay to thank for that.


Right, but why hang on to the idea of bussinesses? Why propose this 'market' crap in the first place, what is wrong with pure syndicalism without any of the capitalism?

there is no capitalism. i keep saying this. Capitalism means: ownership of the means of production by individuals. Socialism means the means of production is owned by the workers or the community as a whole.

i'm not trying to turn this into an arguement of the meaning of capitalism, but you're falsely classifying this system as capitalist. my system advocates that the workers own the means of production collectively, and NOT that the means of production be owned by individuals. therefore it is a form of socialism.

socialism is a system with common ownership of production, and has little to do with how the product is distributed. my idea is common ownership of production and distribution based on a semi-free market. your idea is common ownership of production and distribution based on a command market.

believe me, i have alot of respect for the style of socialism that you advocate. i just think that we might be more successful with my system, especially when it comes to ensuring a continuation of economic progress and in gaining popular support for the revolution. you might think it won't work, but i think it will, and that's why i haven't stopped defending my position yet (actually, it's more like i haven't stopped defending whether my theory is socialistic or not - nobody seems to be paying attention to what i'm saying)


Also I never said it [feudalism] 'crafted' modernity, I said it brought us to the point of 'modern' and collapsed.

feudalism brought us to the capitalist stage, then faded away because capitalism was more efficient. capitalism brought us to medernity. we need now to further advance our progress AND at the same time allow capitalism to fade away (or we need to obliterate it).


Your the one claiming the capitalist notions of the free market, the price system (and therefore the wage system) are 'here to stay'.

1. the free market is not limited to capitalism. capitalism will die, but the free market will remain intact (to an extent that makes it compatible with socialism).

2. the price system will remain, but as well, will be modified to be compatible with socialism (such as, the price system will fade away for necessities, and fair prices for non-necessities will emerge because it will be us, the workers, setting them)

3. the wage system will remain because it's the one thing that exists today that the workers will ardently hold on to. however, i have made it clear that a classless society will emerge; therefore, a wage system that is compatible with socialism will develope (one that perhaps BOTH pays a set yearly wage that is the same to every person AND gives small production bonuses to reward the hard working and encourage everyone to contribute as much as they possibly can.


Capitalism goes beyond your weak anylisis, for example your new system is capitalist because it proposes maintaining capital, and no matter who owns capital, if the idea of capital still exists - guess what system you have.

now i see where you're coming from in calling my system capitalist.

however, even in a communist system, capital still exists: factories, tools, workers, etc. are all a form of capital. the difference is this: who benefits from the existence of capital, and how it's used.


So it isn't a free market. For the whaterverth time.

tweaked free market. semi-free market. no truly free markets exist now, and never will, but the 'free market' we have now fucks the worker more than it benefits him. i suggest that we modify what we have now so that it is beneficial to the workers (rater than the bourgeois, who won't even exist in my system)




What if a company creates a monoply by price gouging? What if a company simply loses out on the great gamble that is the free market? How about the chaos of the market making erratic and slow scientific progress?

like i said... it's tweaked free market. So it isn't a free market. For the whaterverth time.



there would be laws banning such things. And if Michigan voted against these laws?

michigan, along with the rest of the world, would consist of a population that is 100% working class. no bourgeois. why would a worker vote against a law that protects him from the partiality of capitalism? the whole of the citizenry would benefit equally from the system... even if there are the few among us who would rather not be benefitted equally by the system, they certainly don't have enough numbers to to anything in a true democracy.


Because as they raise those prices, they get more money.

but in a free market, if you raise prices, you lose business, and hence, lose profit. if company A (the bigger firm) raises its prices to increase income, company B (the smaller one) will leave their prices the same (to take over the business that company A is losing because of their unfair prices) or will lower their prices to gain a much larger portion of the consumers. company A will wind up losing profit, and will have to lower their prices again.


That and what if they choose to produce things they don't want for that very reason? If I started a company that made yachts wit ha bunch of my mates and we made sure that we started our company in an area with a scarcity of yachts therefore able to make our yachts real expensive. We'd reap the profits and never buy any yachts and therefore have no need to keep a cap on our prices.

and then another company, seeing that you're selling your yachts at insane prices, will start up and sell their yachts at fair prices to gain the customers. your company will start to lose profit and will have to lower prices to compete.


Bollocks, the US simply economically beat the USSR - and this was not so much to do with the system as it was to do with material conditions in russia, which had just jumped from feudalism to socialism meaning that it was at a disadvantadge, also taking into account the famine and so on

true - they were economically disadvantaged. i posted about that yesterday (it's after yours and whitten's post).

but nonetheless, their government chose to invest their resources in military technology, rather than in consumer end technology (i realise this was to ensure their safety. but i believe that if they had invested moreso into their economy rather than their military, they would have gained alot more support world wide, and possibly even eased the tensions with the US).


Then of course there was the fact that the US suffered very little during WWII, whereas Russia was utterly raped. So your claims hold no water.

but it was WWII that opened up eastern europe AND asia to soviet influence. but i do agree with you on this, alot. the soviets took a beating and came back swinging, but the amerikkans waited until the end of the war to do anything, and didn't suffer a single hardcore attack (pearl harbor wasn't shit compared the battles of stalingrad and leningrad).

also, i have to point out this for carping reasons: what about the UK? they didn't take as bad a beating as the soviets, but the reich did bomb the piss out of them for over a year straight... they recovered very quickly, and had military AND consumer technology advances...


Bullshit, They were far more advanced in areas of industry and space travel. Also if you take into account rate rather than actual technology they beat the shit out of the US, especially under Stalin's ten year plan. If they hadn't been betrayed by khurshchev then they could easily have outstripped the US in a matter of years.

stalin, despite all his evils, i will admit did alot for the soviet economy. they made a good recovery... but like i said, it was in military and space travel.

and as far as military technology goes... the west got to some important military technology first: ICBMs, hydrogen bomb, laser-guided missiles, etc.

and space travel: the soviets had the amerikkans at first (sputnik), but amerikka passed them... afterall... amerikka landed a man on the moon. if the soviets wanted to show their space travel powress... they should have brought the amerikkan flag back (that would have been the best ***** slap of all time).

industry wise... the only time that i can think of that they might have been close to amerikka would have been at the begining of the krushchev administration

krushchev did fuck them over pretty good: technology advances slowed (if they continued to advance at the same rate as they did under stalin, they would have caught up with the amerikkans just in time for the union to break up), they did nothing to encourage "free" nations to accept communism, lost a very important ally in china, and made a fool of themselves when they backed out of cuba (and the amerikkans did NOT back out of turkey).


Bullshit, automation is cheaper than paying wages.

but for automation, they have to pay the workers operating the machines (skilled trade) a MUCH higher wage. no engineer or technician will work for the same wage as an assembly line worker.


What if one company doesn't want to share, and the area in which is based votes to keep the technology, because they are reaping the benefits of living with the largest monoply?

make it illegal not to share information. the people tend to know what's best for them (they'll vote to require freedom of information and technology because it will benefit them via lowered prices and technological advances spread through out the entire industry).


Did you bother to read up on technocracy?

yeah, i did. it only says that we CAN produce at a rate that would make everything available easily.

it fails to deal with the fact that, if there is no incentive to overproduce, we will not overproduce. this incentive is production pay.


If that worked as a calcuation why isn't everyone working as hard as they can under the wage system?

because most people aren't paid by production. most people are paid by the hour. the companies buy people's time, not their effort. if i worked for an hourly rate, i wouldn't work any harder than the laziest worker in the building. with an hourly-rate pay system or a set yearly wage system, no one has a reason whatsoever to bust ass: if you work hard, you still make the same as the people who don't work hard at all.




how will there be abundance if there is no incentive to produce? Ah but there is, the abundance.

ok, good point.... but...

look at it from the point of view of the average amerikkan: why should i work my ass off (while some other schmuck hardly works at all) if we're just going to get the same benefit of this abundance?

and, what if there's something that i want that there is no abundance of? if it's not a plentiful item, you can't just hand it out to everyone who wants it and say, 'hey, thanks for working so hard, here you go."

like a space shuttle. even if there is only 10 people per year who want a new space shuttle, that's still 9 more than we produce every year. do you propose we move resources (workers) into the field of space shuttle construction?

and, with a 1:10 ratio of production:want, that would make the space shuttle VERY valuable... so suppose i am the one person on this years waiting list who get's a new space shuttle... i can turn around and trade it to the next guy in line for everything he owns (and thus, i have just begun a business).


Do you actually have a desire for a space shuttle

yes... i do actually want a space shuttle. i want to bring back the amerikkan flag from the moon. so where's my goddamn space shuttle?


does anyone and also een if you can find one example of such a person you've got to remember that the world will be as radically different from today post-revolution as today is from feudalism.

um.... you lost me, your post seems like alot of shit just jumbled together.

but if i can still translate jibberish (sorry... i had to), i believe you're trying to say: does anybody else want a space shuttle as well, and things will change.

well, i bet there's alot of adventure seekers who would love to have one. hell, probably some people would want one just to show it off to all their friends.

and, how will it be different in the future? if there's 10 people today who want a space shuttle i immagine there will be multitudes more in the future...


Who the fuck is april horton? And who in the name of my testicles is john rummel? Whoever they are they're not communist. Even if they claim differently, they're as communist as pol-pot.

and i would have figured you as a polpotist.

a. horton and j. rummel are two of the top members of the CPUSA-MC. and, if agreeing that the workers should control the means of production means you're not communist, then i suppose none of us are then. and, if agreeing that the class system and the exploitation it has created should be done away with means you're not communist, then, well, i suppose i'm not a communist just like karl marx wasn't.


The United States could do what it wanted, if it invaded Canada then I assume the Canadians would organise a geurilla defense. No need for a government

the united states could recruit more people for its army than canada has in its entire population. what good will guerrilla tactics do them? but if there was an organised government, they could lead the military effectively and rally support from the rest of the world.

if its just people fighting to protect themselves, no government will get involved because it would be too chaotic; with organised military defending the country, support from other governments would no doubt come to help because there would already be an established organisation guiding the citizens AND the military.

i can't explain this well...


And what stopped you was a law against killing? I find that hard to believe.

how? i don't want to go to prison, so i don't kill people. i'm a white, pollitically active, middle class amerikkan who listens to heavy metal and speaks proper english... they'd use me as currency.


YOu don't know a lot about Hitler or his motivations do you?

you don't exactly have to know the entire history of Das Dritte Reich to know that one of hitler's longterm goals was world domination so his people have all the resources they could ever want.


Plenty of pissed of anachists though, they also have guns. Do the mathematics.

but suppose my militia has better tactics (such as the blitzkrieg). as we slaughter resister after resister, we'd get more and more supporters, even if for no other reason than fear.


What stops people opposing them? Do people just become doormats without the leading hand of a government?

no, but without an organised government, with an organised military to protect the people, they won't get far in stopping an organised group of fascists.



you mentioned bourgeois economic theory You used it.

i used bourgeois economic theory? where did I once mention that a small minority of wealthy people should control the economy? where did I once mention that there should be a society based on economic class?



how does this have anything to do with women yuppies (bourgeoise)? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know what bourgeoise means?

indeed i do know the definition of bourgeoise... but do you? Do you really?


You're bringing it to a capitalist 21st century, all your ideas of the "21st century" are bourgeoise capitalist constructions.

where did I once mention that a small minority of wealthy people should control the economy? where did I once mention that there should be a society based on economic class?

better yet... when did i mention that the workers should NOT control the means of production? when did i mention that there should NOT be a classless society controlled by, and for the benefit of the workers?


Then why do you have these 'elected' representatives. You can't have it both ways.

like i said, the elected workers have little power. they make ideas that they think the workers will support. if the workers support the ideas, the workers will vote aye. if they don't, they'll vote nay.


Of course they did, because they refused to bow down capitalist free market imperialism, they paid the price for being communist - next time around we will be sure not to fail. Next time, by thee way, if you're still about you'll be up against the wall.

no, they failed because their command economies failed. the people in those countries wanted a change just as much as the people in the non-communist countries did. but to them, if communism means command economy, they'd rather not have it.

if communism meant free economy, they'd have been happy to stick with it.


Yes, I know full well what the bourgeoise call distributive systems.

no matter what people call it, it means the same thing: loss of freedom. command economies naturally destroy themselves.

that's why i created a theory of a modified free market socialism - so socialism won't fail because it's being built on a pathogenic economic system that puts control in the hands of the few (the distributors) and claims to benefit the many (the workers).


The words 'command economy' have no real meaning and were inveneted entirelty by capitalist "philosophers" and bourgeoise economists to scare people into believing they couldn't be free under a distributive system.

because you can't be. it's the one thing they understood well. in the free market, we (the worker-consumers) decide what to make, how much to make, and when to make it (by demand), and we decide how to make it and how to distribute it (by supply. in a command/"distributive" economy, someone outside of production/consumption makes these decisions. they'll decide on what they think is best for the people, but the only people who know what is really best for us is us, and we make those decisions ourselves by supply and demand. we supply it and we demand it.


It's funny that you say this 'modern communism' which has, so far, 3 supporters that I know of has replaced marxism which has millions worldwide.

marxism, too, started out with only a few supporters.

but, so far, i've gotten good responce to my theory (here, i've gotten 4 pms of supporters who didn't want to post anything because they didn't want to deal with closed-minded schmucks calling them capitalists). the 2 cpusa members that i've discussed it with tend to agree. i've gotten really good response on Communist2 (yahoo group), networks54, and communistleague... only one person who disagrees, and that was on yahoo.... but i doubt he really understood most of it (his english was really bad, he was from nepal... but if i could speak nepalese, he'd be able to understand it, and i bet he would agree).


But you don't want one, even now. You lying sack of shit.

it really makes sense to me now, why you support a dictatorship-style command economy. you're already good at telling me what i think.

fact of the matter is, i really do want a space shuttle... and a benz, and a rolex, and an ocelot, and alot of other things. i've been interested in space travel since i was a youngin - it's intriguing to me, the fact that there's a vehicle with enough power to escape the earth's gravity (hell, the moon can't even escape) and reach the planets nearest to us... i like to see new places... and... mars is a pretty new place..


BUT IT IS NOT REAL COMMUNISM. It's like somone giving you quorn and claiming it is "providing you with the direct benift of REAL meat", patently ludicrous.

so what you're saying is this:

it's not real communism if it puts the means of production under the control of the workers?

it's not real communism if it abolishes private property?

it's not real communism if it creates a classless society?

it's not real communism if it empowers the people to run their own lives as they see fit?

so... what is real communism, mr. guru?


And how safe from corruption are the people counting the votes? After all, with money there is always an incetive for crimes like stealing or bribery - and with bribery all kinds of corruption is possible.

corruption will be dealt with when it is encountered.

but, i have a question: how safe are we from corruption if there's someone deciding who gets what, as things tend to go in the command economy that you glorify?


How does this translate into an objective measurment? Also who does the inspecting?

a person whose job is to inspect things...



what capitalist will support having to actually get down and earn all of the luxuries he has? All of them. They all claim to have earned them after all.

i mean really having to get to work. roll up his sleeves and build a car door, or harvest wheat.... or the real hardcore jobs... like roughnecking, or lump a train car with 3,000 50-lbs bags of potatos... on the floor... covered with straw and full of spiders. i do it all the time, and i know i have actually earned everything i have.

a person who sits in a chair in a comfortable office and watches the bank account fill up is not earning his keep.


Yes we can, by the time it is right for revolution it will only mean killing around a million people - give or take a couple of thousand (That's worldwide - meaning some nations won't even get to kill them some cappies)

why kill them when we can use them? take away all of their priveleges and put them to work... building factories... or better yet, digging holes in the ground so we have somewhere to burry the ones who outright refuse to accept it.


Bullshit, that would just allow reaction to grow. It would as likley end in fasicsm.

if 99% of the population is in revolt, demanding a change, reactionaries, if any do emerge, will get no where except killed.


Ah but you see it IS a form of fucking capitalism.

explain, in depth, how it is a capitalist system. use detail, and tell me why a classless society fits the definition of capitalism. then tell me why putting the workers in control of the means of production fits into the definition of capitalism. then explain just how collective ownership of property fits the definition of capitalism.



JAZZRATT PROPOSES THAT THERE ARE LESS STUPID FORMS OF CAPITALISM. Yes, and?

all capitalism is stupid. any system that would rather see the few control the many is stupid. no forms are less or more stupid than the last. they're all the same: stupid.


Now piss off, troll.

not until you manage to prove me wrong.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:45 pm
It doesn't matter. If you think your theory is new and revolutionary, you are MEANT to prove it by citing sources and other ideas which might have influenced your theory in some way.
perhaps it is more influential to use logical structuring to support the main concepts, with historical references to support this logic and rationality.

but, seems to me, most of the fucktards here are too close-minded to accept a new contribution to socialist economic theory... they probably wouldn't understand the logic used anyway...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 03, 2006 05:45 pm

No it doesn't. (see how swiftly things get boring if you don't back up your claims - so I suggest you do some serious backing up, motherfucker.)

well then, i tell you what... if you explain how the economy of north korea is efficient, and i won't have to 'back myself up'
I never claimed anything about the economy of north korea so you can ram that fucking strawman right up your arse.




You're proposing mainting a price system, which is the single most ineffeciant method of distributing resources (though it is the most effeciant at selling and depleting them).

i propose using the price/wage system only to distribute non-necessity consumer goods (like electronics, bling necklaces, etc.). as far as necessities go, i already explained those would be distributed as the society needs for free (but i propose having a worker council in charge of the distribution process - the government could become quickly corrupted with such power). You're still proposing a price/wage system - a system antithetical to communism. This is the crux of the matter as far as your shitty argument is concerned.


our needs are met, and we can meet our own wants. and what's more, since no person will have to worry about supplying their necessities, they will be able to fully reap the benefits of their hard work in the form of their immensely increased ability to purchase consumer goods. This is welfare liberalism. Fuck off and stop crapping on about the need for the price system, no socialists are buying your shit.



Yes I am, because buying, selling and trading are fucking capitalist notions. YOu stupid fucknut.

so... if "communists" like you weould take away our freedom to trade with one another... what other freedoms will you take from your fellow workers? will speech go next, since with free speech, we progressive communists might bring up the idea of reëstablishment of free trade? Slippery Slope (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html), fuck you.


and... i can't ever remember a time before today that a communist proposed TAKING a freedom AWAY, rather than granting it. So without taking away these "freedoms" how do you propose preventing the return of capitalism or a rise in facism.




first off: anti-monopoly laws (they exist just about everywhere).
Are inherntily anti-free market, you ****bag.

like i said... it would not be pure free market economy. remember... in a completely free market, people have to pay for their homes, food, education, health care, utilities, etc. i never said a purely free market economy... just one that makes the things we want available to us so we can benefit from our hard work by fullfilling our human materialistic nature Oh dear, you're a sssuming a human nature there, not very socialist - or indeed intelligent - of you.



Sounds like needless bereacracy, it also sounds os open to corruption that it's unbelievable. Makes me think of that Stalin quote "He that votes has no power. He that counts the votes has all the power."

how is there corruption in a real democracy? the politicians aren't the ones with the power, only the people. You've got debt tokens, you've got corruption. Give enough debt-tokens to the vote counters and you can have anything



So if someone travelled somwhere that had (for example) outlawed the colour blue, and didn't know this they would be immediatly punished? Sounds like a great way to create isolated comunities.

first of all: ignorance is innocence. suppose a 19 year old canadian from ontario comes to visit the USA, and tries to buy booze. he's not going to be punished, but rather informed. This is still a policy that has to be set by the local authority, some countries do not accept ignorance as a defence.


plus, i think anyone who is traveling outside their community should know the laws that exist where they are going. You cannot rest an entire system of government on an assumption like that.


as well... generally, the people of a specific region tend to think alike (such as: michigan is a state with alot of hunters/fishermen, and so are ohio and indiana), so law differences between one commune and the next would be minimal. What if one commune is full of white supremecsists? What if there is a sizeable number of vegans in "michegan".



So you propose a socialism whereby concepts like 'michigan' have a meaning? It's sounding more and more like the current system by the minute. Moreover you've just brought up the question that is always put to direct democrats such as yourself: Is it right for the majority to limit the freedoms of a minority in such a way? If there must be laws, why must they be decided by a group of people who may not have the knowledge to make a descision based on common sense? Direct democracy should only be used in cases that do not result in the limiting of freedoms or production amounts.

michigan would mean nothing more than the mitten-shaped state. So the idea of 'states' of america will still exist? What the fuck is wrong with you?
the larger the region gets, the more centralised and bureaucratic the government will become (that's why i like the idea of having minor governments, made up of working class people, with *very limited* control over only a specific community). this allows each person the ability to participate in the government. What if somone wants to increase the size of a region? For example because of inevitable population growth.
in large populations, democracy fades quickly, and the result is having to elect representatives to make the choices for us. the state/province would exist only to define a region, not to govern it, and the nation would serve the same purpose. How do you regulate the sizes and/or populations of regions.


i personally feel that national borders exist primarily to separate the people and to give governments another reason to fight. if i'm crossing from canada into amerikka, there is no difference except that there are different people in charge on each side of the border. I agree with the first part. This is why I think you should abandon silly ideas like "america", "canada" or even "michegan".




are you saying that, even though i work twice as hard and twice as fast as most of my fellow lumpers, that i don't deserve some sort of reward for it? Yes, yes I am.

and, as i said... it's people like you who are dooming communism to remain a theory forever. A) It's people like me that are preparing their class for the revolution. B) It is people like you that are clinging to what the bourgeoise tell you is 'modern' or the 'way the world works' C) You're trying to destroy communism, even as a theory.


i guarantee that the workers will not go for it Why not garumtee that to somone who isn't one of "the workers" you so paternalistically second guess.
- if you propose taking away the benefit that should come from hard work, you'll lose their support. This doesn't seem to have stopped communism spreading through many working class communities and countries, perhaps you as a middle class psuedointellectual haven't noticed this though.
if you don't have the workers' support, you have no support period. Glad to see you recognise your theory's lack of support.



I was recently fired but I mostly do warehouse work, why?

certainly a lumper should understand the need for production pay. if you work hard, you're rewarded well, and this helps the entire community in the end (if i unload as fast and as hardcore as possible (which i do because the more i unload the more i make), i am helping the entire team get all the scheduled trucks done quickly so we can get our production bonuses - the company i work for gives us yearly bonuses for increased production). You sound like all the capitalists I've ever worked with in my life, this is probably because you're saying exactly what they said. Although you're slightly more leftist because you didn't mention "clawing your way out of here and into management". Tell me, do you scab? Because you certianly sound like you do.


and look at it like this: i make more money than my boss AND his boss. i've made just under 39,000 this year, and at my current rate (about 165$ per day), i'm looking to make about 42,000$ this year. my boss is paid production (allowed up to 300$/week) and a salary of 29,000 something - he'll make about 33,000 this year, and his boss is paid salary of 37,000. i have the benefit of production pay to thank for that.
What Union is it you belong to? Oh that's right you're a fucking cappie scab. All this shows is that the theory of labour aristocracy has some merit.



Right, but why hang on to the idea of bussinesses? Why propose this 'market' crap in the first place, what is wrong with pure syndicalism without any of the capitalism?

there is no capitalism. i keep saying this. Capitalism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism) means: ownership of the means of production by individuals. Socialism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism) means the means of production is owned by the workers or the community as a whole. You're using fucking dictionary.com to get your information on the two theories :lol: I can't beleive I ever took you semi-seriously. You're ignoring the fact that you're proposing a system that maintains capital.


i'm not trying to turn this into an arguement of the meaning of capitalism, but you're falsely classifying this system as capitalist. I'm just calling your bullshit for what it is, a system that maintains the concept of capital - i.e capitalism in its most basic.
my system advocates that the workers own the means of production collectively, and NOT that the means of production be owned by individuals. therefore it is a form of socialism. It's a form of communal capitalism, if you had to give the silly unworkable shit a name.


socialism is a system with common ownership of production, and has little to do with how the product is distributed. my idea is common ownership of production and distribution based on a semi-free market. your idea is common ownership of production and distribution based on a command market. Any I dea of freedom of trade is inherintly capitalist, do you not see that? Any freedom to trade is automatically freedom to raise yourself above others, making for an anti-egalitarian society.


believe me, i have alot of respect for the style of socialism that you advocate. Good. I have bugger all for yours though.
i just think that we might be more successful with my system, especially when it comes to ensuring a continuation of economic progress and in gaining popular support for the revolution. Communism requires that you gain popular support yes, but never at the expense of the communism.
you might think it won't work, but i think it will, and that's why i haven't stopped defending my position yet (actually, it's more like i haven't stopped defending whether my theory is socialistic or not - nobody seems to be paying attention to what i'm saying) Nobody is paying attention to what you're saying for a whole plethora of reasons : firstly the psuedo intellectual pretentious bollocks creates a high expectation of the conent, which is not living up to it and secondly because what your proposing is too capitalist for socialists and too welfare-statish for capitalists.



Also I never said it [feudalism] 'crafted' modernity, I said it brought us to the point of 'modern' and collapsed.

feudalism brought us to the capitalist stage, then faded away because capitalism was more efficient. capitalism brought us to medernity. we need now to further advance our progress AND at the same time allow capitalism to fade away (or we need to obliterate it). It must be obliterated, if you understand Lenin then you would understand that capitalism will simply stay and enter a state of decay if it is not overthrown through revolution.



Your the one claiming the capitalist notions of the free market, the price system (and therefore the wage system) are 'here to stay'.

1. the free market is not limited to capitalism. capitalism will die, but the free market will remain intact (to an extent that makes it compatible with socialism). No it won't, unless you're proposing an odd form of socialism with trade and debt tokens. The 'market' is essentially capitalism. The 'free' is a lie told to the gullible to make them believe that the worst form of oppression is in fact emancipation.


2. the price system will remain, but as well, will be modified to be compatible with socialism (such as, the price system will fade away for necessities, and fair prices for non-necessities will emerge because it will be us, the workers, setting them) That's not the price system fading, that's the price system being regualted.


3. the wage system will remain because it's the one thing that exists today that the workers will ardently hold on to. You do talk some shit don't you? Find any socialist worker party (not The Socialist Workers Party, because they're neither socialist nor workers) and ask them if they're going to "ardently hold on" to the wage system. If you came to the kind of socialist parties I know you'd get kicked in by burly dockers.
however, i have made it clear that a classless society will emerge; therefore, a wage system that is compatible with socialism will develope (one that perhaps BOTH pays a set yearly wage that is the same to every person AND gives small production bonuses to reward the hard working and encourage everyone to contribute as much as they possibly can. What you 'made clear' were your own claims, nothing more nothing less. Whether or not they are true is up for debate.



Capitalism goes beyond your weak anylisis, for example your new system is capitalist because it proposes maintaining capital, and no matter who owns capital, if the idea of capital still exists - guess what system you have.

now i see where you're coming from in calling my system capitalist.

however, even in a communist system, capital still exists: factories, tools, workers, etc. are all a form of capital. the difference is this: who benefits from the existence of capital, and how it's used. Factories, tools and workers are not capital. The irst two are simply technology that can be means of production or capital depending on the system - so you're right in that they can be used as capital - but they are not intrinsically capital. Workers are not capital - see if you can figure out why, consider it homework. You're still keeping capital in the form of currency.



So it isn't a free market. For the whaterverth time.

tweaked free market. semi-free market. no truly free markets exist now, and never will, but the 'free market' we have now fucks the worker more than it benefits him. All free markets fuck workers more than benifit them, that is their nature.
i suggest that we modify what we have now so that it is beneficial to the workers (rater than the bourgeois, who won't even exist in my system)Who's this "we", I'll be taking up arms against you if your revolution comes. I'd rather die fighting for socialism than live under your brand new facism.





What if a company creates a monoply by price gouging? What if a company simply loses out on the great gamble that is the free market? How about the chaos of the market making erratic and slow scientific progress?

like i said... it's tweaked free market. So it isn't a free market. For the whaterverth time.


there would be laws banning such things. And if Michigan voted against these laws?

michigan, along with the rest of the world, would consist of a population that is 100% working class. no bourgeois. why would a worker vote against a law that protects him from the partiality of capitalism? Because they're as greedy as you and beleive they 'deserve' more than their colleagues (like you do).
the whole of the citizenry would benefit equally from the system... even if there are the few among us who would rather not be benefitted equally by the system, they certainly don't have enough numbers to to anything in a true democracy. So you would supress the minority using the massed will of the majority and no matter how sizeable this minority you'd still be "benifiting" everyone. Fucking awesome. You silly ****.



Because as they raise those prices, they get more money.

but in a free market, if you raise prices, you lose business, and hence, lose profit. Not if you're a shrewd price-gouger and create yourslef a neat little artificial scarcity (you know the thing that the market thrives on)
if company A (the bigger firm) raises its prices to increase income, company B (the smaller one) will leave their prices the same (to take over the business that company A is losing because of their unfair prices) or will lower their prices to gain a much larger portion of the consumers. But what if they make products of differing quality and more people wish to purchase things made by company A - like comparing a Benz with a Skoda for example - then A will make much more money: as Benz does, compared to companay B.
company A will wind up losing profit, and will have to lowe their prices again. Not always. The free market is about competiton and as such suggests there will be winners, and thes workers will have more money then their so called "equals". Now I don't know about you, but creating a new nobility does not sound to me like making everyone equal.



That and what if they choose to produce things they don't want for that very reason? If I started a company that made yachts wit ha bunch of my mates and we made sure that we started our company in an area with a scarcity of yachts therefore able to make our yachts real expensive. We'd reap the profits and never buy any yachts and therefore have no need to keep a cap on our prices.

and then another company, seeing that you're selling your yachts at insane prices, will start up and sell their yachts at fair prices to gain the customers. your company will start to lose profit and will have to lower prices to compete. Bollocks, they'd have to first set up some sort of customer familiarity, we'd already have a good reputation and would be able to afford to improve our yachts - and yes initially make a loss, but having cornered the market we'd have your upstart companay buggered. Also what about mergers? Do they happen?



Bollocks, the US simply economically beat the USSR - and this was not so much to do with the system as it was to do with material conditions in russia, which had just jumped from feudalism to socialism meaning that it was at a disadvantadge, also taking into account the famine and so on

true - they were economically disadvantaged. i posted about that (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59560&st=0) yesterday (it's after yours and whitten's post). You claim there disadvantadge was to do with the policies intoduced by socialists, it wasn't. It was the Tsar and feudalism that did all that.


but nonetheless, their government chose to invest their resources in military technology, rather than in consumer end technology That's because your lot were at war with them. ****.
(i realise this was to ensure their safety. but i believe that if they had invested moreso into their economy rather than their military, they would have gained alot more support world wide, and possibly even eased the tensions with the US). Ah well, I didn't realise you had a P.h.D in economics... :rolleyes: Or is it that you more about international relations than the experts in the kremlin?



Then of course there was the fact that the US suffered very little during WWII, whereas Russia was utterly raped. So your claims hold no water.

but it was WWII that opened up eastern europe AND asia to soviet influence. Which is neither here nor there, when the company was bruised from famine, war and disease. They also had to crush the reactioanries that were working against the revolution.
but i do agree with you on this, alot. the soviets took a beating and came back swinging, but the amerikkans waited until the end of the war to do anything, and didn't suffer a single hardcore attack (pearl harbor wasn't shit compared the battles of stalingrad and leningrad). Agreed.


also, i have to point out this for carping reasons: what about the UK? they didn't take as bad a beating as the soviets, but the reich did bomb the piss out of them for over a year straight... they recovered very quickly, and had military AND consumer technology advances... USA gave them a hand, we also had the advantadge of not being COCKING HUGE like russia and of course there was the fact that despite losing a lot to the bombs our infrastructure actually remianed mostly in tact.



Bullshit, They were far more advanced in areas of industry and space travel. Also if you take into account rate rather than actual technology they beat the shit out of the US, especially under Stalin's ten year plan. If they hadn't been betrayed by khurshchev then they could easily have outstripped the US in a matter of years.

stalin, despite all his evils, i will admit did alot for the soviet economy. they made a good recovery... but like i said, it was in military and space travel. What does that mean in practical terms? Those were the technologies the USSR needed at the time.


and as far as military technology goes... the west got to some important military technology first: ICBMs, hydrogen bomb, laser-guided missiles, etc. Whatever your propaganda tells you, eh?


and space travel: the soviets had the amerikkans at first (sputnik), but amerikka passed them... afterall... amerikka landed a man on the moon. if the soviets wanted to show their space travel powress... they should have brought the amerikkan flag back (that would have been the best ***** slap of all time). Who the fuck are the Amerikkans? Now I can either assume you're mildly deficient in the brain department or you're spelling "likkke a real revolutionaty". IF it's the latter stop it, it's irritating and doesn't lend anything to your arguments aside from evidence of your consistent inability to spell a single word. The americans rushed to the moon, their technology was less advanced and the USSSR didn't need or want to go to the moon, as there was nothing up there of any use.


industry wise... the only time that i can think of that they might have been close to amerikka would have been at the begining of the krushchev administration

krushchev did fuck them over pretty good: technology advances slowed (if they continued to advance at the same rate as they did under stalin, they would have caught up with the amerikkans just in time for the union to break up), they did nothing to encourage "free" nations to accept communism, lost a very important ally in china, and made a fool of themselves when they backed out of cuba (and the amerikkans did NOT back out of turkey). None of this is indicitave of a problem is socialism rather in khurschevite policy and revisionist treachery.



Bullshit, automation is cheaper than paying wages.

but for automation, they have to pay the workers operating the machines (skilled trade) a MUCH higher wage. no engineer or technician will work for the same wage as an assembly line worker. You can have considerbly less enjineers, it still works out cheaper.



What if one company doesn't want to share, and the area in which is based votes to keep the technology, because they are reaping the benefits of living with the largest monoply?

make it illegal not to share information. the people tend to know what's best for them (they'll vote to require freedom of information and technology because it will benefit them via lowered prices and technological advances spread through out the entire industry). Remember your democracy, as you've chosen to keep debt tokens, can easily be influenced by bribes, so somone in 'michegan' can easily decide they want to overturn this law and if it is counted as the "will" of the people, well there's fuck all you can do. THat and what if somone just chooses to use their tech on the quiet? Who will inspect them? How will the ybe punished?



Did you bother to read up on technocracy?

yeah, i did. it only says that we CAN produce at a rate that would make everything available easily.

it fails to deal with the fact that, if there is no incentive to overproduce, we will not overproduce. this incentive is production pay. You're wrong, and not only are you wrong you're a grotesquely ugly freak. The wage system is a stupid form of incentive compared to simply working beacues, well you want to. People will more happily do what they want for nothing, than do what they don't for loads of cash.



If that worked as a calcuation why isn't everyone working as hard as they can under the wage system?

because most people aren't paid by production. most people are paid by the hour. the companies buy people's time, not their effort. if i worked for an hourly rate, i wouldn't work any harder than the laziest worker in the building. with an hourly-rate pay system or a set yearly wage system, no one has a reason whatsoever to bust ass: if you work hard, you still make the same as the people who don't work hard at all. Blah, blah, blah - cappie propaganda again. How do you explain people paid by production who are still poor? Stop being aq blind **** and accept your system is fuck all.




how will there be abundance if there is no incentive to produce? Ah but there is, the abundance.

ok, good point.... but...

look at it from the point of view of the average amerikkan: why should i work my ass off (while some other schmuck hardly works at all) if we're just going to get the same benefit of this abundance? Because you wwant to, because this is what you fought for. Remember after the revolution we will not have the 'average' american, because the average american is opposed to socialism.


and, what if there's something that i want that there is no abundance of? if it's not a plentiful item, you can't just hand it out to everyone who wants it and say, 'hey, thanks for working so hard, here you go." They require energy credit investments, to track the energy used in the creation


like a space shuttle. even if there is only 10 people per year who want a new space shuttle, that's still 9 more than we produce every year. do you propose we move resources (workers) into the field of space shuttle construction? The worker puts their energy credits in. The energy used is recorderd, the factory then makes a space shuttle. Simple. Bloke now has a shuttle, that they can't feasibly use, and considerably less energy credits than they started with.


and, with a 1:10 ratio of production:want, that would make the space shuttle VERY valuable... so suppose i am the one person on this years waiting list who get's a new space shuttle... i can turn around and trade it to the next guy in line for everything he owns (and thus, i have just begun a business). Why? The guy next to you can get one for free and he isn't an idiot.



Do you actually have a desire for a space shuttle

yes... i do actually want a space shuttle. i want to bring back the amerikkan flag from the moon. so where's my goddamn space shuttle? Over there. I trust you have however many hundred megajoules worth of energy credits? What's that? You have NO energy credits because we aren't actually in a technocratic system? What a shame.



does anyone and also een if you can find one example of such a person you've got to remember that the world will be as radically different from today post-revolution as today is from feudalism.

um.... you lost me, your post seems like alot of shit just jumbled together.

but if i can still translate jibberish (sorry... i had to), i believe you're trying to say: does anybody else want a space shuttle as well, and things will change.

well, i bet there's alot of adventure seekers who would love to have one. hell, probably some people would want one just to show it off to all their friends. And their desires would exist beyond the revolution? Sure they wouldn't be purged?


and, how will it be different in the future? if there's 10 people today who want a space shuttle i immagine there will be multitudes more in the future... Why? If anything post-revolution we will desire less than we do now.



Who the fuck is april horton? And who in the name of my testicles is john rummel? Whoever they are they're not communist. Even if they claim differently, they're as communist as pol-pot.

and i would have figured you as a polpotist. He was a primitivist, so please tell me how you squared pol-pot with technocracy. Go on, I dare you.


a. horton and j. rummel are two of the top members of the CPUSA-MC. and, if agreeing that the workers should control the means of production means you're not communist, That's not the part of your stupid "theory" that I find objectionable and you know it. You're taking a very intellectually dishonest line in this argument.
then i suppose none of us are then. and, if agreeing that the class system and the exploitation it has created should be done away with means you're not communist, then, well, i suppose i'm not a communist just like karl marx wasn't. Again this isn't the part of your theory I object to, so you're just making a ridiculous Straw man (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html).



The United States could do what it wanted, if it invaded Canada then I assume the Canadians would organise a geurilla defense. No need for a government

the united states could recruit more people for its army than canada has in its entire population. what good will guerrilla tactics do them? Quite a lot more than a standing army actually, as geurilla tactics are suited to a smaller force driving back a much larger one - that's the whole point in them.
but if there was an organised government, they could lead the military effectively and rally support from the rest of the world. They'd also have a much more unwieldy army, their cries for support would fall on mostl deaf ears and they could make losses on the international stage through bad policy responses.


if its just people fighting to protect themselves, no government will get involved because it would be too chaotic; with organised military defending the country, support from other governments would no doubt come to help because there would already be an established organisation guiding the citizens AND the military. That's a fairly huge assumption. What makes you think that countries would want to face down america on the issue?


i can't explain this well... Nah, you're explaining it ok. You're just wrong, that's all.



And what stopped you was a law against killing? I find that hard to believe.

how? i don't want to go to prison, so i don't kill people. i'm a white, pollitically active, middle class amerikkan who listens to heavy metal and speaks proper english... they'd use me as currency. Strange, considering the number of white people in prison and the number of those that like heavy metal and politics. This is just an excuse. If you had an actual desire to kill, trusts me I know this, you would not be stopped by considerations of the future. Most likley what would stop you would be the biggest of your mates holding you back and talking you down.

Sorry the board fucked up the rest of your post do you mind redoing it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 03, 2006 05:45 pm

YOu don't know a lot about Hitler or his motivations do you?

you don't exactly have to know the entire history of Das Dritte Reich to know that one of hitler's longterm goals was world domination so his people have all the resources they could ever want.
Didn't think you did.



Plenty of pissed of anachists though, they also have guns. Do the mathematics.

but suppose my militia has better tactics (such as the blitzkrieg). as we slaughter resister after resister, we'd get more and more supporters, even if for no other reason than fear. So you're claiming your tiny militia can single handedly defeat an entire populace, reintroduce the idea of power and...gah - you're a few sandwhiches short of a picinic aren't you.



What stops people opposing them? Do people just become doormats without the leading hand of a government?

no, but without an organised government, with an organised military to protect the people, they won't get far in stopping an organised group of fascists. I find it extremely woreying that you insist a government must exist to 'protect' its citizens, precisly how much 'protection' are we talking? Sounds to me like you want a citizenry under constant survelliance for these mystical fascists that suddenly pop up. (Quick fact - if you reaction starts threatening your system, you didn't stamp it out during the revolution.)




you mentioned bourgeois economic theory You used it.

i used bourgeois economic theory? where did I once mention that a small minority of wealthy people should control the economy? where did I once mention that there should be a society based on economic class? The free market, supply and demand, subjective theory of value. All bourgeoise theories.




how does this have anything to do with women yuppies (bourgeoise)? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know what bourgeoise means?

indeed i do know the definition of bourgeoise... but do you? Do you really? In the real modern left it has two meanings: the first is that of the lcass that owns the means of production and uses that to exploit the proles. The second is used to describe anything that acts to their advantadge or was originally put forward by one of their number as an anti-worker theory (i.e. economism).



You're bringing it to a capitalist 21st century, all your ideas of the "21st century" are bourgeoise capitalist constructions.

where did I once mention that a small minority of wealthy people should control the economy? That is not the entirety of bourgeoise economics.
where did I once mention that there should be a society based on economic class? Ditto.


better yet... when did i mention that the workers should NOT control the means of production? when did i mention that there should NOT be a classless society controlled by, and for the benefit of the workers? You didn't. You came up with this strange idea that trade was freedom, which is a capitalist notion.



Then why do you have these 'elected' representatives. You can't have it both ways.

like i said, the elected workers have little power. Little is some, and through corruption (something which you provide an incentive for) it will grow.
they make ideas that they think the workers will support. if the workers support the ideas, the workers will vote aye. if they don't, they'll vote nay. What if they have a big hard on for facism, and introduce it to the people, slowly of course.



Of course they did, because they refused to bow down capitalist free market imperialism, they paid the price for being communist - next time around we will be sure not to fail. Next time, by thee way, if you're still about you'll be up against the wall.

no, they failed because their command economies failed. the people in those countries wanted a change just as much as the people in the non-communist countries did. but to them, if communism means command economy, they'd rather not have it. YOu know every time you say 'command economy' another capitalist 'intellectual' has a small orgasm? You have been completely brainwashed by the bourgeoise to believe that you need this commodified bullshit civilisation based on trade. You're an idiot.


if communism meant free economy, they'd have been happy to stick with it. Nothing would have changed if communism meant free economy.



Yes, I know full well what the bourgeoise call distributive systems.

no matter what people call it, it means the same thing: loss of freedom. command economies naturally destroy themselves. Of course they do Nozick. When are you going to break out the Rand quotes, my little capitalist running dog?


that's why i created a theory of a modified free market socialism - so socialism won't fail because it's being built on a pathogenic economic system that puts control in the hands of the few (the distributors) and claims to benefit the many (the workers). Firstly I can't believe you were pretentious enough to create this "theory". Secondly, you really need to understand socialism better before you come here trying to claim that trade will save us. There is not one true socialist who would stand beside you when you say that.



The words 'command economy' have no real meaning and were inveneted entirelty by capitalist "philosophers" and bourgeoise economists to scare people into believing they couldn't be free under a distributive system.

because you can't be. it's the one thing they understood well. in the free market, we (the worker-consumers) decide what to make, how much to make, and when to make it (by demand), and we decide how to make it and how to distribute it (by supply. in a command/"distributive" economy, someone outside of production/consumption makes these decisions. they'll decide on what they think is best for the people, but the only people who know what is really best for us is us, and we make those decisions ourselves by supply and demand. we supply it and we demand it. Wishful Thinking (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html), oh and you probably don't know what's best in terms of advanced scientific descions.



It's funny that you say this 'modern communism' which has, so far, 3 supporters that I know of has replaced marxism which has millions worldwide.

marxism, too, started out with only a few supporters.
Marxism also had intellectual merit.


but, so far, i've gotten good responce to my theory (here, i've gotten 4 pms of supporters who didn't want to post anything because they didn't want to deal with closed-minded schmucks calling them capitalists). No you didn't, you lying piece of shit. I have no more reason to believe that than to believe in the existance of god.
the 2 cpusa members that i've discussed it with tend to agree. Yeah, but they're about as socialist as John Kerry.
i've gotten really good response on Communist2 (yahoo group), Yahoo groups tend to be filled with 14 year old crayon munchers, so this doesn't surprise me.
networks54, What the fuck is that.
and communistleague... I know league members, so I'll call your bullshit on that one - also they only let workers in and you're a self confessed middle class scab.
only one person who disagrees, and that was on yahoo.... but i doubt he really understood most of it (his english was really bad, he was from nepal... but if i could speak nepalese, he'd be able to understand it, and i bet he would agree). Even if this was true I'd commend this person thourghly on having the balls to stand up to your bullshit dogma.



But you don't want one, even now. You lying sack of shit.

it really makes sense to me now, why you support a dictatorship-style command economy. you're already good at telling me what i think. You're clearly lying that's why. either that or supremely anomolous. For a start why do you want a spaceship - a vehicle you can't comprhend, much less pilot, a vehicle which serves you no practical purpose. The only reason I could see fro you wanting to own one is if you're a bourgeoisified reactionary.


fact of the matter is, i really do want a space shuttle... And as soon as you can fly it, it's all yours.
and a benz, It's a shame the word 'benz' will only have a histrical meaning post revolution.
and a rolex, Same for rollex, you don't think we'd let these things continue to exist? They'd occupy the same space in people's minds as words like "michegan"
and an ocelot, Well, go to where there are som ocelots and get it yourself.
and alot of other things. i've been interested in space travel since i was a youngin Doesn't mean you can fly a shuttle.
- it's intriguing to me, the fact that there's a vehicle with enough power to escape the earth's gravity (hell, the moon can't even escape) The moon isn't powered, of course it can't escape.
and reach the planets nearest to us... i like to see new places... and... mars is a pretty new place.. I'd happily send you to mars. We could load you and the other berks that follow your capitalism up there.



BUT IT IS NOT REAL COMMUNISM. It's like somone giving you quorn and claiming it is "providing you with the direct benift of REAL meat", patently ludicrous.

so what you're saying is this:

it's not real communism if it puts the means of production under the control of the workers?

it's not real communism if it abolishes private property?

it's not real communism if it creates a classless society?

it's not real communism if it empowers the people to run their own lives as they see fit? This is two things: the old favourite and one used so often by you cappies in OI the Straw Man (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)

so... what is real communism, mr. guru?


And how safe from corruption are the people counting the votes? After all, with money there is always an incetive for crimes like stealing or bribery - and with bribery all kinds of corruption is possible. and not for the first time in your arguments an Argumentum ad nauseum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam).


corruption will be dealt with when it is encountered. By whom?


but, i have a question: how safe are we from corruption if there's someone deciding who gets what, as things tend to go in the command economy that you glorify? There would be no incentive.



How does this translate into an objective measurment? Also who does the inspecting?

a person whose job is to inspect things... Hired by whom? Who do they report to?




what capitalist will support having to actually get down and earn all of the luxuries he has? All of them. They all claim to have earned them after all.

i mean really having to get to work. roll up his sleeves and build a car door, or harvest wheat.... or the real hardcore jobs... like roughnecking, or lump a train car with 3,000 50-lbs bags of potatos... on the floor... covered with straw and full of spiders. i do it all the time, and i know i have actually earned everything i have. Most of what you have is a result of the labour aristocracy, if it were not for the hyper-exploitation of the third world your employer wouldn't be paying you so lavishly.


a person who sits in a chair in a comfortable office and watches the bank account fill up is not earning his keep. Some capitalists argue this too.



Yes we can, by the time it is right for revolution it will only mean killing around a million people - give or take a couple of thousand (That's worldwide - meaning some nations won't even get to kill them some cappies)

why kill them when we can use them? Because I am not a creul person.
take away all of their priveleges and put them to work... building factories... or better yet, digging holes in the ground so we have somewhere to burry the ones who outright refuse to accept it. Yes, that's productive and unlikley to cause counter revolutions.



Bullshit, that would just allow reaction to grow. It would as likley end in fasicsm.

if 99% of the population is in revolt, demanding a change, reactionaries, if any do emerge, will get no where except killed. You've done this (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html), the context of my quote was in response to you talking about a time before revolution, whislt you're still trying to persade 99% of the people to give up the old boss for a new one.



Ah but you see it IS a form of fucking capitalism.

explain, in depth, how it is a capitalist system. It maintains capital. I need not explain further.




JAZZRATT PROPOSES THAT THERE ARE LESS STUPID FORMS OF CAPITALISM. Yes, and?

all capitalism is stupid. This I do not refute.
any system that would rather see the few control the many is stupid. no forms are less or more stupid than the last. they're all the same: stupid. You're assuming stupidity is a binary, that's a false premiss.



Now piss off, troll.

not until you manage to prove me wrong. I have. Conistently.

If you reply to this with one more of your fucking ad nauseums, do not expect more than a two line reply.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

I never claimed anything about the economy of north korea so you can ram that fucking strawman right up your arse.

indeed you didn't. but you seem to favour the command economy (a failed attempt at final communist development) or the distributive economy (the furthest stage of communist development, still theoretical)

north korea has a failed communist system with a command economy.


You're still proposing a price/wage system - a system antithetical to communism. This is the crux of the matter as far as your shitty argument is concerned.

you have a good point. i should have entitled the thread "socialism and the free market economy." i look forward to the future that is atainable within my lifetime or the lifetime of my children (if i'm ever doomed to 18 years of the prison that comes with fatherhood). i believe the socialist stage will have the semi-free market economy that i described. in a communal society, i do agree that the wage system would eventually wither away.

however, i still believe that it would be hard to convince most people of pushing on into a communist stage, and there's a good possibility that if one were ever realised, most people would probably want to revert to the socialist stage.


So without taking away these "freedoms" how do you propose preventing the return of capitalism or a rise in facism.

like i said, in a direct democracy, the will of the people as a whole will guide the development of the socioeconomic system. no society of liberated workers will ever want to return to capitalism, nor it's retarded, sinister little brother, fascism.


Oh dear, you're a sssuming a human nature there, not very socialist - or indeed intelligent - of you.

human nature will always participate in our development. you can't get around it, you just have to hope you can educate the people enough to see past their innate greed and work together to benefit the whole of society (which will benefit the person in the end).


You've got debt tokens, you've got corruption. Give enough debt-tokens to the vote counters and you can have anything

this is one thing i definately have to agree wit you on: money (power) does create corruption rather easily. the only system that will be free of corruption, naturally, is the furthest stages of human social development (communism), since it does propose that wages/prices/cash will eventually disappear.


What if one commune is full of white supremecsists? What if there is a sizeable number of vegans in "michegan".

well, don't travel to the racist commune if you have an IQ higher than your own age (i.e., are anti-racist), or don't travel to the vegan communes if you love meat... they don't agree that PETA means "people eating tasty animals"

or... better yet... let's invade the racists and send them all to reëducation camps, and if they don't make it through those and become normal, decent human beings... we can exile them to the downtown-harlem commune and see how they survive there :)



in large populations, democracy fades quickly, and the result is having to elect representatives to make the choices for us.* the state/province would exist only to define a region, not to govern it, and the nation would serve the same purpose. How do you regulate the sizes and/or populations of regions.

trial and error. see what size population works best for each individual area. if that commune becomes too large, give the people the option to divide it (it's their commune, let them decide).


I agree with the first part. This is why I think you should abandon silly ideas like "america", "canada" or even "michegan".

it's like i said, though.... michigan would not exist as a "state," or any place of specific government. it would be the name, nothing more... just a way to let people know what part of the world you're from.


You're trying to destroy communism, even as a theory.

yeah right... i'm trying to make the pre-communist stage of development more appealing to the people who might be apprehensive of completely changing the structure of society (which is pretty much every working class amerikkan)... if we ease the people into it, making slow changes from the old to the new, we'll be able to get more supporters.


This doesn't seem to have stopped communism spreading through many working class communities and countries, perhaps you as a middle class psuedointellectual haven't noticed this though.

well, let's see... how 'wide spread' is communism in amerikka, or canada, or europe? i don't know, but i can safely say that less than 10% of the population supports us right now.

and by the way, i'm not middle class... the middle class doesn't have to break a sweat to get what they have... and they live in the suburbs, which is where i go to steal car stereos :)


What Union is it you belong to? Oh that's right you're a fucking cappie scab. All this shows is that the theory of labour aristocracy has some merit.

un-unionised: they got rid of all their union members like 4 years ago.

so, you're saying that i'm in some sort of 'upper class' because i work hard to get everything i have?

believe me, capitalists aren't lumpers... their office assistants, lawyers, directors of the board, and other bullshit jobs like that. no capitalist could, or ever would, lift an average of 50,000 something lbs a day: they see manual labour as below them.


It's a form of communal capitalism, if you had to give the silly unworkable shit a name.

lol.

listen to yourself, friend. "communal capitalism"? lol.


Any I dea of freedom of trade is inherintly capitalist, do you not see that? Any freedom to trade is automatically freedom to raise yourself above others, making for an anti-egalitarian society.

i do understand that, but i feel it is the best way to compensate the overly productive for their contribution. at worst, we would have an income difference range of 10 - 15 thousand per year. there would be no poor nor wealthy; just workers... some workers who give to their community everything they possibly can, and alot of workers who just give what they feel like giving, and are unwilling to give everything they possibly can because the guy next to them isn't either.


It must be obliterated, if you understand Lenin then you would understand that capitalism will simply stay and enter a state of decay if it is not overthrown through revolution.

revolution will come one way or other... it just depends on if it's a long peaceful one or violent, sudden one.

that's a whole different debate, though.


No it won't, unless you're proposing an odd form of socialism with trade and debt tokens. The 'market' is essentially capitalism. The 'free' is a lie told to the gullible to make them believe that the worst form of oppression is in fact emancipation.

trade is what drives the economy to create the abundance you propose will exist.

capitalism is based on a free market, but i believe at least one form of socialism can be as well.

communism is a different story.

i'm not going to bother going through the rest of your post... i have things to do, and i need to get to bed sometime soon... work (i'm sure you still remember it) is the greatest responsibility of all time.

nonetheless, i have made my points effectively: the nest stage of our development can be one of this tweaked free market economy of which i speak, and still remain socialist: the workers liberated, empowered; classlessness; our needs provided; etc.

but i would like to further discuss the communist economy, based on the 'distributive' model that you describe. i'm sure it won't be like what we've seen in places like the soviet union - these were command economies, and there is no doubt that there is a difference.

but the difference between a command economy and a theoretical communist economy is probably one of the less important topics to discuss: i have a pretty good idea of what the differences are.

no, what i want is you to teach me of your theorised 'distributive economy.' i do realise that, for the most part, you're right: communism (though it may be able to) would not be based on a free market economy because of the wage/price system... socialism, however, i am relatively certain will be, because the "abundance" will have to be created before products/services can be evenly, fairly, and widely distributed on a need/want basis. the only way to create this abundance is with the pure, hardcore driving force of cash (which will be far more easily available in the tweaked free market socialism that i predict than it is in capitalist free market). cash is the incentive to pave the road to abundance, and abundance is the road to communist economy.

and i want to discuss the reasons it would or would not work (remember now, i'm a communist: i believe it would, but i have alot of points i want you to respond to as to why it might not... and don't worry, none of the points are capitalistic).

but yeah, as i said, i look more toward the near future. communism is a long ways away, and i am relatively certain we won't see it in our life time (the bourgeois are too powerful right now... hell, they even managed to get their dick in china's shitchute, and that was the last remaining powerful "communist" country). in the near future, however, i believe we have socialism, and i believe socialism can (and should) operate under the conditions that i have pointed out.

...

your shot.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 01, 2006 06:13 pm
ZX3, please read this closely. i will answer all your questions to the best of my ability and defend the socialist status of my theory (i posted it primarily because i want to defend it)


You can call the economy what you want, but it will not be substantially different than the capitalist environment. So far, the other socialists on these boards seem not to find it as an acceptable form of socialism.
HOW do the workers work together in a socilaist community? In what way is it different?


i don't understand how you can consider it the same as capitalism, or even close, for that matter. capitalism puts the ownership of the means of production in the hands of the individual investor.

for one thing, my theory creates socialism in the economy by putting the means of production under the control of the workers. for another, capitalism lets people and corporation own our homes. my theory creates communism by putting the ownership of our homes in the hands of the community as a whole - with capitalism, the rich have the biggest homes, with my theory, those who need the biggest homes have the biggest homes.

the workers work together as a socialist community to operate their respective corporations to benefit the whole group of workers (as opposed to capitalism, where the workers work together to serve the company owner, who operate the business to best benefit themselves and themselves only.


How are the houses distributed? What is the determination for building them?

as i said, the homes are distributed to compensate the needs of the people occupying them. for example: let's suppose i am married, have 3 children, and one on the way. naturally, i will need a large home so my family can live in comfort - my community will provide a relatively large house that is somewhat close to where i work. but, let's suppose i'm single with no children. as a bachelor, i won't need anything larger than a one bedroom apartment. but, on the other hand, let's suppose i'm single, but my parents are old, retired, and somewhat incapable of taking care of themselves - i will need a small 2 bedroom home or a large apartment at ground level.

as far as building new houses, these will be built to compensate the future needs of the community. let's suppose, in my commune, 4 people have recently gotten married, and are planning on having children, and another couple has their second child on the way. this means that we will need one new 3 bedroom house and one new 2 bedroom house - the couple with their second child on the way will move into the new 3 bedroom house after it has been constructed, one of the recently married couples will occupy the home that the first couple moved out of, and the other recently married couple will occupy the new 2 bedroom house.

it's alot more complicated than this, of course... but that is why i believe only communism can work to properly compensate the people's shelter needs: communism exists very successfully in small communes where the people can come together in councils and make these decisions.


One of the issues I have had with socioalists on these boards has been either their inability or unwillingness to describe how a socialist community will function. Your proposal is an aatempt, but basically you are stating that if the workers own the means of production, everything else can stay the same. That is not socialism.

not so.

i propose we create a classless society (which, i do accept will take time). everyone will be workers with a specific duty.

i propose we communalise property (if we don't have to pay rents, we (everybody, because everyone will be essentially equally wealthy, with a small difference between the highly productive and the unproductive) will have a far greater portion of our income to devote to the items and activities we enjoy. with the current capitalist form of society we have, most of the people have to use most of their income to pay their bills, and only the wealthy can truly enjoy the luxuries of the amerikkan lifestyle. with my socialist system, there won't be poor or wealthy people, and no body will have excessive bills (such as their house payments, property taxes, etc.), so everyone will have the same access to luxuries that are acurrently reserved for the rich.

i propose that our basic needs are taken care of (especially food). i think that basic food supplies (like bread, milk, cereal, eggs, etc.) should be free to everyone without rationing - the government uses taxes (collected equally from everyone) to pay for the production of such needs, and make them available for free.


Here is a weakness with the proposal:

let's hear it


You are only proposing to regulate the price of certain items. But those items need to purchase goods and service in its production (the production of bread does not only need farmers, it needs trucks to distribute the bread, some sort of wrap to be placed aropund the bread, machinery to produce the bread, cleaning supplies, fuesl ect)

i have already considered this. i feel that the best way to take care of this is for the government to use our tax money to cover production (i do realise this is similar to command economies, but as i said before, this is tweaked free market socialism - not pure free market, but enough free market to retain the same luxury the bourgeois has today). as well, i believe that the government should be small - do away with things like huge military spending, space travel, espionage, etc., and we'll have more than enough funds to cover it.


If the socilaist community is to be free market, it means that the producers of those items, if they are nort deemed to be essential, can charge what somebody else wil pay. If the bread producers price is fixed, it make tougher for the bread producer to purchase those items. So the bread producer either cuts back production of bread OR does not purchase as much of other items.

this here is actually the first change i've made to my idea.

i changed it from fixed prices on food to free food provided by taxes.

as for companies selling things at whatever price the people are willing to pay... the free market itself will take care of that: if car company A is charging way too much for their car because they know the people will pay it, car company B will lower their prices and bring in way better business, forcing car company A to lower their prices (and i think that there should be laws to protect fair business practice).

but also consider this: if the workers control the company... why would they raise the prices? for one thing, if they raise prices, they'll lose business and their overall monthly production dividends will drop (remember, i said that profits should go back to the worker directly). secondly, there is a good chance that the workers of that company buy the products that their company produces: they would avoid raising prices because they will ultimately have to pay these prices as well.


You have suggested subsidising the bread manufacturer. But that still poses a problem. Because the obnly way to subsidise the breasd people is by taking the money through taxes from industries which are profitable and successful (thus most likely from those industries not subject to price regulatiion and otherwise are engaging in feree market. But this means that those successful industries have less money to expand and be successful

but if every company is paying an equal portion of their total income (let's suppose company A makes 1,000 $ profit per year, and have to pay 300, but company B makes 10,000 $ profit per year, they have to pay 3,000. the rest is divided between each worker and reinvested back into the company), it will work out equally well for both large and small industries, because each company has an equal proportion of their income to reinvest and expand.


The proposal would also require the employment of numbers of beauracrats whose job it will be to process the paperwork to get the money to the bread folks, who would have the money anyhow without the middlemann, save for the price regulation

as for the actual set-up of overall government, i haven't completely worked all the kinks our yet.

i somewhat like the idea that violencia.proletariat proposed: no government larger than a small region (such as a state). this will, nonetheless, require a certain ammount of bureaucracy, but far less than with an entire nation made up of smaller states.

trouble is: these bureaucracies will have to exist (command economy or free market) - capitalist free market is the only socioeconomic system that manages to avoid bureaucracy (trouble is: look at what it costs the mass of the people). however, i still don't like the idea of some stuffed-suit deciding what to make, when to make it, where to make it, how to make it, how much, etc. - i think that even this bureaucracy should treat this sector of the economy like a regular corporation (except that they're not in it for profit).


There can be no half measures to creating socialism. Socialism is cold, it is bloody, it is violent. People who claim the contrary are simply wrong.

although i will agree that the PATH TO socialism will be strewed with blood, violence, and pain, i must disagree that socialism itself is: how is it cold, bloody, or violent to empower the working class?

...

just keep in mind that I am just proposing that socialism can support a free market economy. i'm sure several different kinds of economies can exist under socialism - as long as the workers are at the core of control over the means of production, it is still socialism; i personally just think that socialism with free trade would work out best.
It does not matter who OWNS the property, understand? There is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry. That industry will still need to function in a capitalist environment. What you originally proposed to do is to keep that environment, but simply change ownership. The, when you thought about it a bit (which is a rarity amongst socialists, btw) you realise that the free market economy is not conducive to a socialist community. You then propose to modify the environment, all the while still calling it free market. But when you modify the free market, you change the free market (and in fact will weaken it). The whole rationale originally was to take the power of the free market and employ it to bring about the victory of socialism which will benefit all. In fact you proposition will weaken that which you depend upon to bring about a socialist community. That does not seem to be much in the way of progress.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 04, 2006 12:04 am

I never claimed anything about the economy of north korea so you can ram that fucking strawman right up your arse.

indeed you didn't. but you seem to favour the command economy (a failed attempt at final communist development) or the distributive economy (the furthest stage of communist development, still theoretical)

north korea has a failed communist system with a command economy.
It's still a straw man argument. And here is why.

I proposed a theoretical distributive economy, I never made claims either way on the success of the DPRK, which I think is a subject far too nuanced for you to grasp anyway. The fact you have chosen to make an argument I've not been using (the DPRK is a good example of a distributive economy) and use that to weaken my position shows how intellectually dishonest you are. Oh yes and stop using 'command economy' it's a loaded term.



You're still proposing a price/wage system - a system antithetical to communism. This is the crux of the matter as far as your shitty argument is concerned.

you have a good point. i should have entitled the thread "socialism and the free market economy." i look forward to the future that is atainable within my lifetime or the lifetime of my children (if i'm ever doomed to 18 years of the prison that comes with fatherhood). i believe the socialist stage will have the semi-free market economy that i described. in a communal society, i do agree that the wage system would eventually wither away.

however, i still believe that it would be hard to convince most people of pushing on into a communist stage, and there's a good possibility that if one were ever realised, most people would probably want to revert to the socialist stage. What, then, you are proposing sounds like revolution via reform, or at least containing elemts of reform (i.e reforming the market). Which reminds me of an analogy::

Imagine a village that always had a beast, it was a huge beast that secreted a deliscious honey, but when people went to collect this honey it would bite them - this beast is feudalism, eventually the people get fed up with this beast and they get a new, more vicious beast to rid themselves of it. This new beast is of course capitalism. Over the many years the second beast got more vicious toward the people and less honey. The village had a meeting on what to do about it: First a villager (representing capitalism) declared that if they let it roam more freely through the village and eat as many people as it wanted, as every time it ate somone it produced more honey, the reformist decided that the beast should have its teeth blunted, but allowed to keep its claws, the communist was the only one who pointed out that they didn't need the beasts honey.

Or something like that, I was drunk when I invented it so that may bot be it in its entire glory, but you get the gist.



So without taking away these "freedoms" how do you propose preventing the return of capitalism or a rise in facism.

like i said, in a direct democracy, the will of the people as a whole will guide the development of the socioeconomic system. no society of liberated workers will ever want to return to capitalism, nor it's retarded, sinister little brother, fascism. It only takes one community of voters to create a breakaway state.



Oh dear, you're a sssuming a human nature there, not very socialist - or indeed intelligent - of you.

human nature will always participate in our development. you can't get around it, you just have to hope you can educate the people enough to see past their innate greed and work together to benefit the whole of society (which will benefit the person in the end). You first have to prove the existance of human nature before you make these ridiculous claims.



You've got debt tokens, you've got corruption. Give enough debt-tokens to the vote counters and you can have anything

this is one thing i definately have to agree wit you on: money (power) does create corruption rather easily. the only system that will be free of corruption, naturally, is the furthest stages of human social development (communism), since it does propose that wages/prices/cash will eventually disappear. It is the "job" of a person "creating" a socioeconomic system to reduce corruption as much as humanly possible, this could well mean removing debt tokens as siftly as possible.



What if one commune is full of white supremecsists? What if there is a sizeable number of vegans in "michegan".

well, don't travel to the racist commune if you have an IQ higher than your own age (i.e., are anti-racist), or don't travel to the vegan communes if you love meat... they don't agree that PETA means "people eating tasty animals" What if you're born there, do not know they are or have to move through them to get somewhere. Also why are you allowing reaction simply to exist? Should you not be fighting it?


or... better yet... let's invade the racists and send them all to reëducation camps, and if they don't make it through those and become normal, decent human beings... we can exile them to the downtown-harlem commune and see how they survive there :) And if they're accomplished geurillas? And what of vegans passing anti-meat laws or reactionaries passing anti-vivesection laws?




in large populations, democracy fades quickly, and the result is having to elect representatives to make the choices for us. the state/province would exist only to define a region, not to govern it, and the nation would serve the same purpose. How do you regulate the sizes and/or populations of regions.

trial and error. My faith in this sytem is rising by the second. (That's sarcasm by the way)

see what size population works best for each individual area. if that commune becomes too large, give the people the option to divide it (it's their commune, let them decide). What if they don't take this option and quite like having a large poplulation? What if it's simply a matter of population rather than the size of the region?



I agree with the first part. This is why I think you should abandon silly ideas like "america", "canada" or even "michegan".

it's like i said, though.... michigan would not exist as a "state," or any place of specific government. it would be the name, nothing more... just a way to let people know what part of the world you're from. I suppose if, for some reason, you had to have a system whereby people identified where they were from, wouldn't it be more sensible simply to do it by land mass or even tectonic plate?



You're trying to destroy communism, even as a theory.

yeah right... i'm trying to make the pre-communist stage of development more appealing to the people who might be apprehensive of completely changing the structure of society (which is pretty much every working class amerikkan)... if we ease the people into it, making slow changes from the old to the new, we'll be able to get more supporters. The point is not reform, we need simply to radicalise the working class, not sugar coat socialism until it's simply capitalism. But I'm glad to see your argument shifting.



This doesn't seem to have stopped communism spreading through many working class communities and countries, perhaps you as a middle class psuedointellectual haven't noticed this though.

well, let's see... how 'wide spread' is communism in amerikka, or canada, or europe? i don't know, but i can safely say that less than 10% of the population supports us right now. It's still spreading, especially here in Britian. Most working class communities around here have a relativley large contingent of socialists, communists and anarchists.


and by the way, i'm not middle class... the middle class doesn't have to break a sweat to get what they have... and they live in the suburbs, which is where i go to steal car stereos :) You said you were white and middle class when you were pretending you wanted to murder people.



What Union is it you belong to? Oh that's right you're a fucking cappie scab. All this shows is that the theory of labour aristocracy has some merit.

un-unionised: they got rid of all their union members like 4 years ago. But of course you kept working for the union busters, like a good little scab.


so, you're saying that i'm in some sort of 'upper class' because i work hard to get everything i have? You honestly think that you're not higher in the class analysis than the proletarians of the third world? I suffer no such delusion, I am fully aware of the fact that I'm not at that level.


believe me, capitalists aren't lumpers... their office assistants, lawyers, directors of the board, and other bullshit jobs like that. no capitalist could, or ever would, lift an average of 50,000 something lbs a day: they see manual labour as below them. All of them? None of your colleagues subscribe to a capitalist doctrine? Yet somehow the idea of socialism isn't widespread? Logical inconsitancy anyone?



It's a form of communal capitalism, if you had to give the silly unworkable shit a name.

lol.

listen to yourself, friend. "communal capitalism"? lol. You came up with ****ing thing, I was just trying to think of a name for it.



Any I dea of freedom of trade is inherintly capitalist, do you not see that? Any freedom to trade is automatically freedom to raise yourself above others, making for an anti-egalitarian society.

i do understand that, but i feel it is the best way to compensate the overly productive for their contribution. at worst, we would have an income difference range of 10 - 15 thousand per year. there would be no poor nor wealthy; just workers... some workers who give to their community everything they possibly can, and alot of workers who just give what they feel like giving, and are unwilling to give everything they possibly can because the guy next to them isn't either. Sounds like a sytem the could a) Get used to and b) not want to change, or allow to wither away.



It must be obliterated, if you understand Lenin then you would understand that capitalism will simply stay and enter a state of decay if it is not overthrown through revolution.

revolution will come one way or other... it just depends on if it's a long peaceful one or violent, sudden one. "Long peaceful"? Is that way of supporting reformism?



No it won't, unless you're proposing an odd form of socialism with trade and debt tokens. The 'market' is essentially capitalism. The 'free' is a lie told to the gullible to make them believe that the worst form of oppression is in fact emancipation.

trade is what drives the economy to create the abundance you propose will exist.

capitalism is based on a free market, but i believe at least one form of socialism can be as well. Well, I've got a ready written response to the question of abundance, courtesy Enrique Lescure


An essential part of the technocratic arguments to abolish the price system and introduce energy accounting, has been the idea that we have leaved the less advanced stages prior to the 20th century and moved into a state of abundance, at least regionally. This would mean that a technate cannot be defined as an economy, since economy, which is defined as "householding with limited resources" [1], exclusively demands a state of scarcity. The energy accounting part remains the most controversial and yet interesting part of the technocratic design.

When people hear the idea that we are proposing to either distribute - or as in the vulgar version, create - abundance, they generally believes that we are insane. That is due to a difference of the way we are using a specific word in relation to what the word is usually interpreted as in mainstream culture, litterature and usage. That difference makes the general public think that we in some way represents a neo-utopian fringe group which is using pseudoscience in order to claim crazy things.

That is of course not the truth, but let us first explore the general interpretation of abundance, which even is existing as a developed version within economics. According to this definition [2], abundance would be a state when all resources are existing in a unlimited amount, with 100% availability for the consumer. This state would automatically turn all prices irrelevant since everything would be available without neither work or trade.

That is of course physically impossible.

Economists often do claim that abundance is impossible due to that reason. They also consider human want to be infinite, and within the neoclassical school of economy, it is viewed as obvious that humans would always want to increase their consumption. As a side-note, it could be said that many economists, like for example Sollow or the adherents of Kuznets, either deliberately denies [thus denying that the resource flow is a limited flow within a closed system] all environmental problems or minimize them using carefully selected statistics in certain fields.

Yes, it is true that we probably cannot achieve abundance in the definition of a Schlaraffenland where roosted sparrows are flying into our mouths. Yes, it is true that we do live on a limited earth where resources could theoretically be depleted.

But that is not a concern for technocratic assumptions, but rather for our infrastructural programmes. We are using a diffferent definition of abundance. This is worth pointing out because the idea that we are using the general definition is prevalent, even within our ranks, and that is not good since it spreads confusion.

When we technocrats are talking about abundance, we have defined it as more resources than one individual could physically consume, which of course do not imply that the resources themselves in some magical way have multiplied themselves. Rather have our opportunity to increase our usage with reduced energy consumption in man-hours been realised.

Simplified, it means that we have a self-sufficient territory, an advanced technological production capacity, and a well-educated personnel able to administrate that. Even more simplified, it means that we would be able - if we abolished the price system - to distribute a high life standard to all inhabitants of the continental area.

Of course, we must look to reduce our ecological footprint while increasing our prosperity. This means that the technate won't be a utopia of limitless resources, but rather a very prosperous civilisation existing as a dynamic balance with the surrounding environment, reminding of the ancient hydraulic civilisations but with high technology and no god kings.


i'm not going to bother going through the rest of your post... i have things to do, and i need to get to bed sometime soon... work (i'm sure you still remember it) is the greatest responsibility of all time. I'm sure you fufill your responsibility to the bourgeiosie admirably.



no, what i want is you to teach me of your theorised 'distributive economy.' i do realise that, for the most part, you're right: communism (though it may be able to) would not be based on a free market economy because of the wage/price system... socialism, however, i am relatively certain will be, because the "abundance" will have to be created before products/services can be evenly, fairly, and widely distributed on a need/want basis. the only way to create this abundance is with the pure, hardcore driving force of cash (which will be far more easily available in the tweaked free market socialism that i predict than it is in capitalist free market). cash is the incentive to pave the road to abundance, and abundance is the road to communist economy.

and i want to discuss the reasons it would or would not work (remember now, i'm a communist: i believe it would, but i have alot of points i want you to respond to as to why it might not... and don't worry, none of the points are capitalistic).

but yeah, as i said, i look more toward the near future. communism is a long ways away, and i am relatively certain we won't see it in our life time (the bourgeois are too powerful right now... hell, they even managed to get their dick in china's shitchute, and that was the last remaining powerful "communist" country). in the near future, however, i believe we have socialism, and i believe socialism can (and should) operate under the conditions that i have pointed out. Most of this is covered in the article, aside from how the distribution will work, I shall now answer that question.
People are given an equal number of energy credits, calculated on the maximum total energy output of the technate. An energy credit, by the way is very different from a debt token for the following reasons

You cannot trade them, give them to anyone else or otherwise use them like money.

Once used they are 'destroyed' not given to somone else.

They are simply an easy method of tracking distribution and making sure everyone gets an exactly equal share in the products made through energy

They do not represent an abstract concept, rather they represent the concrete idea of energy - kilowatts

They cannot be hoarded, at the beggining of a new year your quota is cancelled and you get a new one, calculated again.

They are not part of an 'economy'





...

your shot. Bullseye.
Over to you.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

I proposed a theoretical distributive economy, I never made claims either way on the success of the DPRK, which I think is a subject far too nuanced for you to grasp anyway. The fact you have chosen to make an argument I've not been using (the DPRK is a good example of a distributive economy) and use that to weaken my position shows how intellectually dishonest you are. Oh yes and stop using 'command economy' it's a loaded term.

how does korea have a distributive economy? their government controls what the people can have, not the people. and, there is an economic upper class and an economic lower class: the government and military get the most out of the people's work, and the people get just enough to survive.

look at the images in the following links, and tell me if their if fair distribution in north korea...

north korean children (http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/STUDENTS/Hwang/child2.jpg)
north korean army (http://www.newprophecy.net/North_Korean_military.jpg)


What, then, you are proposing sounds like revolution via reform, or at least containing elemts of reform (i.e reforming the market).

that could be one of the first stages of the revolution: we have to weaken them if we are to engage them effectively.


Imagine a village that always had a beast, it was a huge beast that secreted a deliscious honey, but when people went to collect this honey it would bite them - this beast is feudalism, eventually the people get fed up with this beast and they get a new, more vicious beast to rid themselves of it. This new beast is of course capitalism. Over the many years the second beast got more vicious toward the people and less honey. The village had a meeting on what to do about it: First a villager (representing capitalism) declared that if they let it roam more freely through the village and eat as many people as it wanted, as every time it ate somone it produced more honey, the reformist decided that the beast should have its teeth blunted, but allowed to keep its claws, the communist was the only one who pointed out that they didn't need the beasts honey.

.... naturally, the communist is right: we can hire bees to do our bidding.


You first have to prove the existance of human nature before you make these ridiculous claims.

i don't need to prove the existence of something that we can see with our own eyes. i know, this is just a small example of the overall concept: everybody wants, and when we get, we want even more.


I suppose if, for some reason, you had to have a system whereby people identified where they were from, wouldn't it be more sensible simply to do it by land mass or even tectonic plate?

isn't michigan a land mass?

besides... suppose your visiting some place that doesn't speak the same language as where you come from, and meet another person who does, and even with the same accent (they're just visiting too)... aren't you going to ask them what part of that language region they're from?


The point is not reform, we need simply to radicalise the working class, not sugar coat socialism until it's simply capitalism.

radicalise the workers and the bourgeois will bring the hammer down even harder (well, not the hammer, that's what we use for bringing down on somebody.... but they'd sure let the mulch (stephen colbert's term) land on us even heavier).


But I'm glad to see your argument shifting.

i've been doing alot of thinking on the subject the past few days. cash does create inequalities.

my arguement has been, pretty much, that rather than creating them, as the capitalist free market does, it will expose them. i don't think people should be unequal, but i do think that that the people be rewarded for their efforts, because in a socialist system, their efforts (input) help the people around them as well as they help the individual.

reform the economy (to gain proletariat support & weaken the bourgeois), then radicalise the workers (to strengthen them), then bring the hammer down.


It's still spreading, especially here in Britian. Most working class communities around here have a relativley large contingent of socialists, communists and anarchists.

but that's the UK. you blokes have always been a little more left than most of the rest of the western world.


You said you were white and middle class when you were pretending you wanted to murder people.

being white doesn't equate to being middle class.

and what's more... the middle class doesn't want to kill people.... they want to enslave them.


But of course you kept working for the union busters, like a good little scab.

i started working for the meijer warehouse after they got rid of their union. thing is, though... when i worked for tops as an independant lumper, i was making anywhere from 1500 to 1800 a week... they brought in a lumper service, unionised everyone, and production rates were cut, and i went down to 500 to 700 a week. so i quit and moved back to michigan. i attribute this loss in production pay to: the company (NTB) and to the ineffectiveness of the union (ILWU)


You honestly think that you're not higher in the class analysis than the proletarians of the third world? I suffer no such delusion, I am fully aware of the fact that I'm not at that level

yeah, if you compare us to third world workers... we're fucking loaded. i make in a day what most people in africa make in a month. but they were fucked over hardcore by imperialism (which treated them as inferior, and imperialist exploration/development companies thus refused to pay them equal).

but there's more to being middle class than how much money you make in a year.


All of them? None of your colleagues subscribe to a capitalist doctrine? Yet somehow the idea of socialism isn't widespread? Logical inconsitancy anyone?

lumping is one of those jobs in which socialism thrives. most of the people i work with just plain aren't political, but the few who are are all in favour of socialism, with the exception of one old timer who think that socialism is what they had in the soviet union. fortunately, though... most of us are the right age to barely remember the soviet union.


You came up with ****ing thing, I was just trying to think of a name for it.

semi-free market socialism seems more accurate... socialist economic structure based on a somewhat free market with a communist social base.


Sounds like a sytem the could a) Get used to and b) not want to change, or allow to wither away.

well, if it's that good... then why not? :) but believe me... the mass of the workers (the ones who just input what they feel is fair) will long to continue the revolution into communism so they're equal with their highly productive counterparts.


"Long peaceful"? Is that way of supporting reformism?


as i said, when it comes to this subject, i am inbetween: a long, peaceful reformationist stage of revolution, followed by a violent, sudden, all-encompasing stage.


I'm sure you fufill your responsibility to the bourgeiosie admirably.

i'm sure i do. but we'll call it a need to live.




You cannot trade them, give them to anyone else or otherwise use them like money.


Once used they are 'destroyed' not given to somone else.


They are simply an easy method of tracking distribution and making sure everyone gets an exactly equal share in the products made through energy


They do not represent an abstract concept, rather they represent the concrete idea of energy - kilowatts


They cannot be hoarded, at the beggining of a new year your quota is cancelled and you get a new one, calculated again.


They are not part of an 'economy'




that actually sounds like a good idea... but, as i said, how will it compensate the hardest workers? and suppose the ammount of energy tokens distributed doesn't match up with real, raw physical output? how will the collective (technate) deal with a sort of "rush on the tokens"?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+December 05, 2006 06:40 pm--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ December 05, 2006 06:40 pm)
I proposed a theoretical distributive economy, I never made claims either way on the success of the DPRK, which I think is a subject far too nuanced for you to grasp anyway. The fact you have chosen to make an argument I've not been using (the DPRK is a good example of a distributive economy) and use that to weaken my position shows how intellectually dishonest you are. Oh yes and stop using 'command economy' it's a loaded term.

how does korea have a distributive economy? [/b]
WHere the fuck did I say it did you stupid motherfucker?


their government controls what the people can have, not the people. and, there is an economic upper class and an economic lower class: the government and military get the most out of the people's work, and the people get just enough to survive.

look at the images in the following links, and tell me if their if fair distribution in north korea...

north korean children (http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/STUDENTS/Hwang/child2.jpg)
north korean army (http://www.newprophecy.net/North_Korean_military.jpg) Contentious and irrelevent. I never made any positive arguments for the DPRK, I never mentioned it as an example of a distributive economy. Stop waving that straw man about.



What, then, you are proposing sounds like revolution via reform, or at least containing elemts of reform (i.e reforming the market).

that could be one of the first stages of the revolution: we have to weaken them if we are to engage them effectively. Seems to me to be pissing in the wind, but it's not something I can critiscise too strongly.



Imagine a village that always had a beast, it was a huge beast that secreted a deliscious honey, but when people went to collect this honey it would bite them - this beast is feudalism, eventually the people get fed up with this beast and they get a new, more vicious beast to rid themselves of it. This new beast is of course capitalism. Over the many years the second beast got more vicious toward the people and less honey. The village had a meeting on what to do about it: First a villager (representing capitalism) declared that if they let it roam more freely through the village and eat as many people as it wanted, as every time it ate somone it produced more honey, the reformist decided that the beast should have its teeth blunted, but allowed to keep its claws, the communist was the only one who pointed out that they didn't need the beasts honey.

.... naturally, the communist is right: we can hire bees to do our bidding. Honey was the wrong word -it's basically something organic that the animal secretes that we want but don't need - it's the pretty lights of capitalism (to mix a metaphor).



You first have to prove the existance of human nature before you make these ridiculous claims.

i don't need to prove the existence of something that we can see with our own eyes. i know, this is just a small example of the overall concept: everybody wants, and when we get, we want even more. You have raw data of what we do you have to prove it's got anything to do with nature. Human nature is one of those cappie arguments you're so fond of (not that that's my critiscism of it - I'd be commiting a logical fallacy if it was) but it doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up.



I suppose if, for some reason, you had to have a system whereby people identified where they were from, wouldn't it be more sensible simply to do it by land mass or even tectonic plate?

isn't michigan a land mass? No. It's a political division in the land mass of america (which contains all of north america (canada included), mexico and south america), not a land mass of its own.


besides... suppose your visiting some place that doesn't speak the same language as where you come from, and meet another person who does, and even with the same accent (they're just visiting too)... aren't you going to ask them what part of that language region they're from? Maybe, but they could well just mention the individual urbanate they come from, for all the difference it makes.



The point is not reform, we need simply to radicalise the working class, not sugar coat socialism until it's simply capitalism.

radicalise the workers and the bourgeois will bring the hammer down even harder (well, not the hammer, that's what we use for bringing down on somebody.... but they'd sure let the mulch (stephen colbert's term) land on us even heavier). Causing even more workers to become radical as the 'friendly' facade of capitalism crumbles away.



But I'm glad to see your argument shifting.

i've been doing alot of thinking on the subject the past few days. cash does create inequalities. Good on you, mate.


reform the economy (to gain proletariat support & weaken the bourgeois), then radicalise the workers (to strengthen them), then bring the hammer down. Reforming the market is an uneccesary waste of time.



It's still spreading, especially here in Britian. Most working class communities around here have a relativley large contingent of socialists, communists and anarchists.

but that's the UK. Still counted among the nations of Europe & America when I checked.
you blokes have always been a little more left than most of the rest of the western world. I really don't think that's the case, but even if it is it's more to do with how our left operates than an innate british leftism.



You said you were white and middle class when you were pretending you wanted to murder people.

being white doesn't equate to being middle class.

and what's more... the middle class doesn't want to kill people.... they want to enslave them. I made neither of these claims you, however said:

lying ****
i'm a white, pollitically active, middle class amerikkan who listens to heavy metal and speaks proper english Two very intersting points here: 1. You do admit to being middle class and 2. You refer to yourself as speaking 'proper english' as if using slang or having an accent made you too 'lower class'.



But of course you kept working for the union busters, like a good little scab.

i started working for the meijer warehouse after they got rid of their union. thing is, though... when i worked for tops as an independant lumper, i was making anywhere from 1500 to 1800 a week... they brought in a lumper service, unionised everyone, and production rates were cut, and i went down to 500 to 700 a week. so i quit and moved back to michigan. i attribute this loss in production pay to: the company (NTB) and to the ineffectiveness of the union (ILWU) THe point is moot, you're not in a union (why not join the IWW?) and you work for a companay that busts unions.



You honestly think that you're not higher in the class analysis than the proletarians of the third world? I suffer no such delusion, I am fully aware of the fact that I'm not at that level

yeah, if you compare us to third world workers... we're fucking loaded. i make in a day what most people in africa make in a month. but they were fucked over hardcore by imperialism (which treated them as inferior, and imperialist exploration/development companies thus refused to pay them equal).

but there's more to being middle class than how much money you make in a year. No shit sherlock. This is why the theory of labour aristocracy has been added to modern communism, a theory that states, somewhat contrevsially, that first world workers have become 'bourgeoisified'. Personally I think it's bollocks, but there is some merit to radicalising the third world first.



All of them? None of your colleagues subscribe to a capitalist doctrine? Yet somehow the idea of socialism isn't widespread? Logical inconsitancy anyone?

lumping is one of those jobs in which socialism thrives. most of the people i work with just plain aren't political, No such thing. Being 'apolitical' implies a satisfaction with the status quo - meaning they subscribe to capitalist doctrine.



You came up with ****ing thing, I was just trying to think of a name for it.

semi-free market socialism seems more accurate... socialist economic structure based on a somewhat free market with a communist social base. Communal Capitalism works better because things are owned communally and it utilises the capitalist system.



Sounds like a sytem the could a) Get used to and b) not want to change, or allow to wither away.

well, if it's that good... then why not? :) This system is one many people are used and don't want to change. Those facts do not make it 'good'.
but believe me... the mass of the workers (the ones who just input what they feel is fair) will long to continue the revolution into communism so they're equal with their highly productive counterparts. Why introduce this step at all? I'm not suggesting a jump to communism straight off - but we already have a system with class envy, why make a second one?



I'm sure you fufill your responsibility to the bourgeiosie admirably.

i'm sure i do. but we'll call it a need to live. I manage to live without licking out the bourgeoise arse.


that actually sounds like a good idea... but, as i said, how will it compensate the hardest workers? The same way as you compensate everyone else.
and suppose the ammount of energy tokens distributed doesn't match up with real, raw physical output? Then something has gone wrong with the accounting system and steps must be taken to recitfy it.
how will the collective (technate) deal with a sort of "rush on the tokens"? Could you explain what you mean by a "rush on the tokens"?

[Dimentio]

Congratulations. The topic starter have reinvented social democracy.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 05, 2006 11:59 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 05, 2006 11:59 am)
Aeturnal [email protected] 04, 2006 12:04 am

I never claimed anything about the economy of north korea so you can ram that fucking strawman right up your arse.

indeed you didn't. but you seem to favour the command economy (a failed attempt at final communist development) or the distributive economy (the furthest stage of communist development, still theoretical)

north korea has a failed communist system with a command economy.
It's still a straw man argument. And here is why.

I proposed a theoretical distributive economy, I never made claims either way on the success of the DPRK, which I think is a subject far too nuanced for you to grasp anyway. The fact you have chosen to make an argument I've not been using (the DPRK is a good example of a distributive economy) and use that to weaken my position shows how intellectually dishonest you are. Oh yes and stop using 'command economy' it's a loaded term.

[/b]

Oh! You propose a THEORETICAL system. No wonder why you have been so desirous to shake off the APPLICATION of these theories over the past few months. They are not meant to be implemented; they are meant merely to be discussed.

BTW, the above passage indicates that you see N. Korea as a good example of a distributive economy, despite your later denials. I guess the problem is that N. Korea went from theory to practice.

[Tungsten]

Jazzratt

You cannot trade them, give them to anyone else or otherwise use them like money.
Wow...money...that we can't use like money. That's a real work of genius. You've really excelled yourself this time.

People are given an equal number of energy credits, calculated on the maximum total energy output of the technate.
I've been visiting some your looney tunes Technocrat sites and frankly, it's fucking joke. For any reader who isn't familar with this, let me save you the trouble: Technocracy basically looks like some bizzare mixture of Karl Marx, B.F. Skinner, Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler, where society ruled by an elite caste of engineers and scientists, who run it with high technology for high technology's sake.
Here's a few quotes I came by on one of them:

"Isn't the question of ownership a vital one?" I asked.

"No," he answered. "It makes no difference who owns the sun. What concerns us vitally is whether we use it properly or not.
:lol: Bush couldn't have written a better testimony on the invasion of the middle east.
"It makes no difference who owns the oil, those A-rabs aren't using it right."

Ownership is a myth. If we once get to using our coal and iron and our industrial and transportation systems to their full capacity, nobody will be fool enough to care if they are owned or not."
If you're wondering what that ringing sound is, it's probably your Orwell alarm.

The engineer especially is not concerned with ownership. Technicians, as such, cannot function in politics. Their training has placed them in a position where decisions are the results of intrinsic fact and not of personal opinion, whether autocratic or democratic.
A novel way of getting people to accept autocracy and slavery- claim it doesn't matter, claim that it's not worth fighting over, and claim that it's simply a "matter of fact", like the length of a ruler.

For lack of anything better to say, I asked him a question which evey advocate of a new order will recognize as an old acquaintance: "Won't you have to change human nature first?" Mr. Scott smiled dryly.

"Did you have to change human nature," he asked "in order to keep passengers from standing on car platforms?"

"Go on," I said, "I'm listening."

"They put up signs first," he continued, "prohibiting the dangerous practice, but the passengers still crowded the platform. Then they got ordinances passed, and the platform remained as crowded as before. Policemen, legislators, public service commissions all took a hand but to no effect; then the problem was put up to an engineer."

"The engineers solved it easily. They built cars that didn't have platforms."
In case you didn't get the underlying message, if you don't obey the engineer caste, technology will be used to make you obey.

Seriously, who wants this shit?

[Demogorgon]

It's not really a new system. It is what Tito advocated. I'm not saying I am disagreeing with it. I advocagte something similair as the next stage for societies development. It beats a straight out command economy anyway.

[LuXe]

Sounds more like welfare liberalism to me.

Yeah we have this crap in Norway. Only problem is; Our society are growing more and more accustomed to private other than public ownership. More private schools etc. I can see where the fuck this is going.

Also; High five to Jazzratt for kicking ass.

[Dimentio]

Why bolster exchange and costly transports between continents to find the lowest denominator? It is crazy. We could reproduce most food almost wherever we are, using modern technology. With a self-sustaining unit, we only need to export what we need in order to switch for imports of raw materials which we do not possess.

Exchange could still be made with scarce items, but interactive economics [technocracy] beats both market economies and command economies.

[LuXe]

:lol: Bush couldn't have written a better testimony on the invasion of the middle east."It makes no difference who owns the oil, those A-rabs aren't using it right."

So what youre saying is that Bush is just like the indians in his wiews of nature and what is ethically right to do? Because if you try to make these peoples opinions look the same, you better have a clear definition on their similar traits.

The rest is bullcrap, and not worthy of response.

[Dimentio]

Pentti Linkola would have approved an environmentalist intervention in Iraq aimed at reducing population XD

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tungsten+December 06, 2006 03:55 pm--> (Tungsten @ December 06, 2006 03:55 pm)Jazzratt

You cannot trade them, give them to anyone else or otherwise use them like money.
Wow...money...that we can't use like money. That's a real work of genius. You've really excelled yourself this time.[/b]
It's not money you mouth breathing cretin.




People are given an equal number of energy credits, calculated on the maximum total energy output of the technate.
I've been visiting some your looney tunes Technocrat sites and frankly, it's fucking joke. For any reader who isn't familar with this, let me save you the trouble: Technocracy basically looks like some bizzare mixture of Karl Marx, B.F. Skinner, Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler, where society ruled by an elite caste of engineers and scientists, who run it with high technology for high technology's sake. It's a) Not facistic, B0 not capitalists (that removes Rand & Hitler - two people who I would've thought you - tungsten - had a raging hard on for). C) It's not marxist and D) Has nothing to do with Skinner's 'philosophies'.
D) It's not "high technolgoy" for the sake of itself it's high technolgoy for the sake of humanity.
Tungsten - you're as thick as two short planks and I hope you get hit byu a bus.
Here's a few quotes I came by on one of them:


"Isn't the question of ownership a vital one?" I asked.

"No," he answered. "It makes no difference who owns the sun. What concerns us vitally is whether we use it properly or not.
:lol: Bush couldn't have written a better testimony on the invasion of the middle east.
"It makes no difference who owns the oil, those A-rabs aren't using it right." Straw man. Also, fucking stupid.


Ownership is a myth. If we once get to using our coal and iron and our industrial and transportation systems to their full capacity, nobody will be fool enough to care if they are owned or not."
If you're wondering what that ringing sound is, it's probably your Orwell alarm. Yes, orwell was obsessed with the oppresive concept of ownership - he had as much of a massive erection over it as tungsten. That's why no one should take his anti-communist ramblings seriously.


The engineer especially is not concerned with ownership. Technicians, as such, cannot function in politics. Their training has placed them in a position where decisions are the results of intrinsic fact and not of personal opinion, whether autocratic or democratic.
A novel way of getting people to accept autocracy and slavery- claim it doesn't matter, claim that it's not worth fighting over, and claim that it's simply a "matter of fact", like the length of a ruler. You could always try to fool somone into taking an inefficiant and stupid system that goes against all common sense by saying "Ah but iy's democratic"


For lack of anything better to say, I asked him a question which evey advocate of a new order will recognize as an old acquaintance: "Won't you have to change human nature first?" Mr. Scott smiled dryly.

"Did you have to change human nature," he asked "in order to keep passengers from standing on car platforms?"

"Go on," I said, "I'm listening."

"They put up signs first," he continued, "prohibiting the dangerous practice, but the passengers still crowded the platform. Then they got ordinances passed, and the platform remained as crowded as before. Policemen, legislators, public service commissions all took a hand but to no effect; then the problem was put up to an engineer."

"The engineers solved it easily. They built cars that didn't have platforms."
In case you didn't get the underlying message, if you don't obey the engineer caste, technology will be used to make you obey.

Seriously, who wants this shit? Oh fuck off.
"caste" is a misnomer as it implies a non-meritocratic hereditry system - which is clearly not what is being proposed.
And technology is a favourite among capitalists to make us obey.


LuXe

Also; High five to Jazzratt for kicking ass. I try :blush:

[R_P_A_S]

WHOA! some of you guys have A LOT OF TIME in your hards. all this defending of your "idea" you probably could of started one already

[red team]

The engineer especially is not concerned with ownership. Technicians, as such, cannot function in politics. Their training has placed them in a position where decisions are the results of intrinsic fact and not of personal opinion, whether autocratic or democratic.

A novel way of getting people to accept autocracy and slavery- claim it doesn't matter, claim that it's not worth fighting over, and claim that it's simply a "matter of fact", like the length of a ruler.

But, of course all things physical and objective are like the length of a ruler. So tell me who should I bribe, intimidate or blackmail to get my ruler to be twice as long? If things that are physically measured can be bribed, intimidated or blackmailed to be twice the amount they originally are then it would really save myself a trip to the gas station.

autocracy and slavery: relative to who? Since in a monetary system "slavery and autocracy" is all relative to someone who has more money and so can choose for someone else to do the slave work that they have the luxury of choosing not to do. And if I do the work because you have the money that I need for purchasing necessities then I&#39;ll inevitably have to pay you back at your stores, your apartments, your gas station, your utility companies so not only will you be "rich" forever, generations who work for you will also be working for you forever. Progressive and humane isn&#39;t it? <_<


In case you didn&#39;t get the underlying message, if you don&#39;t obey the engineer caste, technology will be used to make you obey.

But, this would only be done if there is a public interest in having something made not to be usable for a harmful purpose. If something can be used for in a harmful fashion against somebody else then we shouldn&#39;t design it so it does not have or is reduced in potential to be used in this way? Seriously now, who would agree with you being that you are so much in favour of "democracy" and "freedom"?

Oh, I see you want "democracy" and "freedom" on your terms. What should we call that? Tyranny maybe?

And since money is inherently usable for corruption and rewards elitism for those who can hoard the most of it then it would be in the public interest to get rid of money as soon as possible in favour of something else that doesn&#39;t have those properties.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

WHere the fuck did I say it did you stupid motherfucker?

your exact words were: "the DPRK is a good example of a distributive economy"

perhaps you intended it differently?


Honey was the wrong word -it&#39;s basically something organic that the animal secretes that we want but don&#39;t need - it&#39;s the pretty lights of capitalism (to mix a metaphor).

the problem is this: when you exchange one monster for an even uglier one because it fullfills a specific want, you&#39;re sacrificing the accomplishment of realising this want. feudalism gave us what we needed and the stability of not being involved in the politics of the era (notice that, in feudal wars, only the wealthy died), but sacrificed freedom and prosperity. capitalism opened the vast possibilities of the world with an extremely efficient system (nothing drives us like greed), but sacrificed freedom, equality, and prosperity for the masses. if it keeps going on and on, eventually we&#39;ll be human batteries with our minds connected to a constant feed of the garden of eden so we don&#39;t realise the real situation we&#39;re in.

socialism with a semi free trade economy gives us the possibility and the the freedom, prosperity for all, and equality that capitalism doesn&#39;t, and it opens the door to a further region of perfect human socioeconomic harmony (communism).


You have raw data of what we do you have to prove it&#39;s got anything to do with nature. Human nature is one of those cappie arguments you&#39;re so fond of (not that that&#39;s my critiscism of it - I&#39;d be commiting a logical fallacy if it was) but it doesn&#39;t have a shred of evidence to back it up.

i&#39;m not going to even bother debating this one any further than that it&#39;s the lust, greed, and need that exists in every one of us to different extents. it is natural because it is how we behave when we can break the chains of morality and law: lawlessness fashions violence and hoarding (ever seen a riot?), because in a state like this, each person must do what he must to survive (need), and in the process will attempt to strengthen his position at the same time (lust, greed).

but i do feel that human nature is not a strong tendon in the body of our psyche and existence. most of us can surpass our primal urges without even thinking about it... but it is real. hell, religion was created, if not to bind the people even further, but to battle our simplist human urges. nature creates instinct, reaction battles instinct with mythology.


Maybe, but they could well just mention the individual urbanate they come from, for all the difference it makes.

this is a pointless debate considering the over all topic... with so many cities around the world, it would become complicated to explain where your from without a designated overall place to describe it.


Reforming the market is an uneccesary waste of time.

with a world economy that is as big and powerful as it is today, it would create chaos if we just turned it on its head. i&#39;m just suggesting that we sort of club it at the knee so it crouches in the fellatio position... make the market our *****.

*****es are soft. while the market is looking for a wetnap to cleanup with, we tumble it gently onto its back and take it missionary position. then it&#39;s ready for communism.


Two very intersting points here: 1. You do admit to being middle class and 2. You refer to yourself as speaking &#39;proper english&#39; as if using slang or having an accent made you too &#39;lower class&#39;.

middle class by monetary income standards. i make just about exactly the same as the average amerikkan, according to the cia website (around 42,000/year).

i never said that using proper english equates lower class... i said that, if you go to prison and use proper english, you&#39;re going to be the cellblock wife.


THe point is moot, you&#39;re not in a union (why not join the IWW?) and you work for a companay that busts unions.

i don&#39;t work for a company that busts unions. my company has never been unionised (FHI is contracted by meijers; meijers is the union busters). as for the IWW... to me, they don&#39;t seem like they can really ever get anything done except for minor concessions to the workers. strikes, sit-ins, walk-outs, production sabotage... it makes their points known, but they aren&#39;t working towards the ultimate goal of revoltuion: they&#39;re just hampering it by helping the workers to squirm a little more when capitalism fucks them even harder. the IWW has the right idea... but they&#39;re going about getting things done wrong.


No such thing. Being &#39;apolitical&#39; implies a satisfaction with the status quo - meaning they subscribe to capitalist doctrine.

there&#39;s a difference between supporting the status quo and accepting that, no matter how hard you try, nothing will change. that&#39;s most people: unwilling to fight for the change because they truly believe it isn&#39;t going to get them anywhere.


Communal Capitalism works better because things are owned communally and it utilises the capitalist system.

but, again, it comes down to the raw meaning of capitalism and socialism. capitalism is built on a free market, but socialism doesn&#39;t have a specific economic system defined. it&#39;s malleable, bending for each people and each socialistic movement. what&#39;s more... if capitalism is defined as purely free market, and communism is defined as a purely communal economy, it seems logical that socialism would mix a little of both worlds, being as how it&#39;s the the developmental intermediate.


Why introduce this step at all? I&#39;m not suggesting a jump to communism straight off - but we already have a system with class envy, why make a second one?

ease the distances between the classes so that pure chaotic class struggle doesn&#39;t errupt in the revolution; we don&#39;t need a poor vs. middle class vs. bourgeois war... we need the people united.


I manage to live without licking out the bourgeoise arse.

never had to lick a bourgeois arse... may have eaten the kitty a few times, but i follow that up with a mushroom stamp and a pearl necklace, steal 40 &#036; from our bouegeoise&#39;s purse, crawl out a window and am never seen again.


Could you explain what you mean by a "rush on the tokens"?

like the rush on the banks that caused the great depression.

...

all in all, after doing some thinking on it... it does seem very workable... the harder we all work, the more there is to go around and do on...

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 04:02 pm
It&#39;s not really a new system. It is what Tito advocated. I&#39;m not saying I am disagreeing with it. I advocagte something similair as the next stage for societies development. It beats a straight out command economy anyway.
and that&#39;s just my point. socialism is not based on a command economy. command economies restrict the people too much. this system allows the freedom of free market with the security and equality of socialism.

but nonetheless, it is a possible intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. it&#39;ll give the workers enough power to create and guide a revolution (to establish communism), and allow the efficiency of free trade to bolster our economy so that a distributive economy has a strong foot to stand on.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+December 06, 2006 11:31 pm--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ December 06, 2006 11:31 pm)
WHere the fuck did I say it did you stupid motherfucker?

your exact words were: "the DPRK is a good example of a distributive economy"
[/b]
Abstraction (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html), you miserable failure.

TO look at trhe quote in context it came from this post:

me
The fact you have chosen to make an argument I&#39;ve not been using (the DPRK is a good example of a distributive economy) and use that to weaken my position shows how intellectually dishonest you are. (Emphasis added.) It&#39;s fairly obvious that in this case the offending statement was used to illustrate exactly which argument you have chosen to mischaracterise as being mine.

I can&#39;t be bothered with the rest of your post right now, I&#39;ll be back to sift through it later.

[Tungsten]

LuXe

So what youre saying is that Bush is just like the indians in his wiews of nature and what is ethically right to do?
Nobody mentioned Indians and the Indians weren&#39;t imperialists.

The rest is bullcrap, and not worthy of response.
Like I give a shit what you think.

Jazzratt

It&#39;s a) Not facistic,
I say it is.

B0 not capitalists (that removes Rand & Hitler - two people who I would&#39;ve thought you - tungsten - had a raging hard on for).
Hmm...society ruled by industrialist ubermench...sounds like Rand and Hitler to me. You communists find the strangest bedfellows.

C) It&#39;s not marxist
It&#39;s marxist in the sense that there&#39;s no private property.

D) It&#39;s not "high technolgoy" for the sake of itself it&#39;s high technolgoy for the sake of humanity.
That&#39;s what they all say.

Straw man. Also, fucking stupid.
Yes, is it fucking stupid; I copied from one of your technocrat sites. It&#39;s not straw and it wasn&#39;t taken out of context.

It makes no difference who owns the sun. What concerns us vitally is whether we use it properly or not.

Does this contain some "hidden meaning"? What isn&#39;t said is more important than what is. It sounds like it doesn&#39;t matter who owns a said resource, only that it&#39;s used "properly" (whatever that means) and anyone who prevents it from being used "properly" is presumably a reactionary begging to be eliminated.

You could always try to fool somone into taking an inefficiant and stupid system that goes against all common sense by saying "Ah but iy&#39;s democratic"
It&#39;s worked on you.

Oh fuck off.
"caste" is a misnomer as it implies a non-meritocratic hereditry system - which is clearly not what is being proposed.
It&#39;s what you&#39;ll end up with though.

And technology is a favourite among capitalists to make us obey.
I don&#39;t want to you obey anything. I want you to leave people alone. Now for my number one fan:

red team

But, of course all things physical and objective are like the length of a ruler. So tell me who should I bribe, intimidate or blackmail to get my ruler to be twice as long? If things that are physically measured can be bribed, intimidated or blackmailed to be twice the amount they originally are then it would really save myself a trip to the gas station.
This is one of those ignoble responses that replies to itself. You say you&#39;re willing to blackmail and intimidate to get more? Then how are you any better than these capitalist caricatures you&#39;re always dreaming up? Is the ivory tower at the centre of your utopia any taller than in anyone elses?

autocracy and slavery: relative to who?
These aren&#39;t relative terms.

Since in a monetary system "slavery and autocracy" is all relative to someone who has more money and so can choose for someone else to do the slave work
It should be clear to you by now that this sort of spin doesn&#39;t fool anyone. Slaves don&#39;t use money- they&#39;re just threated and intimidated into working. No money is necessary. If they were being bribed with money, they still wouldn&#39;t be slaves unless the threat of violence is there. Starvation isn&#39;t a threat, because no one enforces it by law; you&#39;d might as well be calling a hurricane a force of capitalist oppression.

that they have the luxury of choosing not to do. And if I do the work because you have the money that I need for purchasing necessities then I&#39;ll inevitably have to pay you back at your stores, your apartments, your gas station, your utility companies so not only will you be "rich" forever,
Assuming that I own all these in the first place. It isn&#39;t going to happen unless I was to nationalise these things.

generations who work for you will also be working for you forever. Progressive and humane isn&#39;t it?
Relative to what? Blackmail and intimidation? It is.

Seriously now, who would agree with you being that you are so much in favour of "democracy" and "freedom"?

Oh, I see you want "democracy" and "freedom" on your terms. What should we call that? Tyranny maybe?
In what way is tyranical? Oh, you might have to work for someone- oh dear oh dear. Terrible.

And the advantage of freedom on my terms is that it&#39;s very difficult for you to be used without your permission as a tool for some philosopher king&#39;s utopian visions. That much should have be obvious.

And since money is inherently usable for corruption
Anything available for exchange is inherently usable for corruption. You&#39;d need a police state to prevent people doing exchanging things.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 04:15 pm
Jazzratt

It&#39;s a) Not facistic,
I say it is.
Yes but you have the mental capacity of a walnut so what you say really doesn&#39;t matter.




B0 not capitalists (that removes Rand & Hitler - two people who I would&#39;ve thought you - tungsten - had a raging hard on for).
Hmm...society ruled by industrialist ubermench...sounds like Rand and Hitler to me. You communists find the strangest bedfellows. If you could point out the Rand in that example? Once you&#39;ve done that you could point out exactly where we used a Hitler-esque ubermensch.



C) It&#39;s not marxist
It&#39;s marxist in the sense that there&#39;s no private property. You could argue that many varieties of anti-marxist anarchism are marxist that way. You&#39;d be an idiot to, but there you go.


D) It&#39;s not "high technolgoy" for the sake of itself it&#39;s high technolgoy for the sake of humanity.
That&#39;s what they all say. What a stupid response devoid not only of meaning or merit but also of wit.


Straw man. Also, fucking stupid.
Yes, is it fucking stupid; I copied from one of your technocrat sites. It&#39;s not straw and it wasn&#39;t taken out of context. THe conclusions you drew from it were straw and the George bush example was sub-simian in its utter stupidity.


It makes no difference who owns the sun. What concerns us vitally is whether we use it properly or not.

Does this contain some "hidden meaning"? What isn&#39;t said is more important than what is. It sounds like it doesn&#39;t matter who owns a said resource, only that it&#39;s used "properly" (whatever that means) and anyone who prevents it from being used "properly" is presumably a reactionary begging to be eliminated. Exactly. Properly here is however clearly and objectivley defined as in the most energy efficiant manner possible.



You could always try to fool somone into taking an inefficiant and stupid system that goes against all common sense by saying "Ah but iy&#39;s democratic"
It&#39;s worked on you. Ah yes, you&#39;re right I&#39;m secretley a lassiex-fair capitalist that believes all this market & democracy crap.


Oh fuck off.
"caste" is a misnomer as it implies a non-meritocratic hereditry system - which is clearly not what is being proposed.
It&#39;s what you&#39;ll end up with though. Your evidence?


And technology is a favourite among capitalists to make us obey.
I don&#39;t want to you obey anything. I want you to leave people alone. Now for my I&#39;ll believe you don&#39;t want me to obey anything when you support a system whereby I can unionise and not get fired by some **** in a suit, where I can take whatever I want and not be arrest by some **** in a silly hat, where my being replaced by a machine in a job is a good thing. Of course you simply support the freedoms of the slave owners. Because you&#39;re a ****.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 06, 2006 11:31 pm

Honey was the wrong word -it&#39;s basically something organic that the animal secretes that we want but don&#39;t need - it&#39;s the pretty lights of capitalism (to mix a metaphor).

the problem is this: when you exchange one monster for an even uglier one because it fullfills a specific want, you&#39;re sacrificing the accomplishment of realising this want. feudalism gave us what we needed and the stability of not being involved in the politics of the era (notice that, in feudal wars, only the wealthy died), but sacrificed freedom and prosperity. capitalism opened the vast possibilities of the world with an extremely efficient system (nothing drives us like greed), but sacrificed freedom, equality, and prosperity for the masses. if it keeps going on and on, eventually we&#39;ll be human batteries with our minds connected to a constant feed of the garden of eden so we don&#39;t realise the real situation we&#39;re in.

socialism with a semi free trade economy gives us the possibility and the the freedom, prosperity for all, and equality that capitalism doesn&#39;t, and it opens the door to a further region of perfect human socioeconomic harmony (communism).
I couldn&#39;t be bothered with this when you decided that capitalism is an efficiant system. All price systems are inherently inefficiant, this includes socialism.



You have raw data of what we do you have to prove it&#39;s got anything to do with nature. Human nature is one of those cappie arguments you&#39;re so fond of (not that that&#39;s my critiscism of it - I&#39;d be commiting a logical fallacy if it was) but it doesn&#39;t have a shred of evidence to back it up.

i&#39;m not going to even bother debating this one any further than that it&#39;s the lust, greed, and need that exists in every one of us to different extents. it is natural because it is how we behave when we can break the chains of morality and law: lawlessness fashions violence and hoarding (ever seen a riot?), because in a state like this, each person must do what he must to survive (need), and in the process will attempt to strengthen his position at the same time (lust, greed).

but i do feel that human nature is not a strong tendon in the body of our psyche and existence. most of us can surpass our primal urges without even thinking about it... but it is real. hell, religion was created, if not to bind the people even further, but to battle our simplist human urges. nature creates instinct, reaction battles instinct with mythology. Wow. You&#39;re able to simply disimiss an argument that philosophers have had for centuries in one trite paragraph, ignoring completeley works by the likes of Sartre because "[human nature]&#39;s the lus, greed and need that exists in all of us.". Yet you feel intellectually strong enough to write a theory? YOu&#39;re being a fucking idiot.
What do you think of this idea by the way?
Humanity creates its own nature.



Reforming the market is an uneccesary waste of time.

with a world economy that is as big and powerful as it is today, it would create chaos if we just turned it on its head. i&#39;m just suggesting that we sort of club it at the knee so it crouches in the fellatio position... make the market our *****.

*****es are soft. while the market is looking for a wetnap to cleanup with, we tumble it gently onto its back and take it missionary position. then it&#39;s ready for communism. A colourful if largley useful metaphor. THe market is not a *****, it is a beast. It controls and corrupts all that use it. A good analogy for the market, that I enocountered a few years ago, is that of the ring in lord of the rings - if we were to take that analogy further then you would represent the character borimir - tragiclally Naive in the beleif you can use it to benifit humanity.



Two very intersting points here: 1. You do admit to being middle class and 2. You refer to yourself as speaking &#39;proper english&#39; as if using slang or having an accent made you too &#39;lower class&#39;.

middle class by monetary income standards. i make just about exactly the same as the average amerikkan, according to the cia website (around 42,000/year). What the fuck do you want with communism? Capitalism isn&#39;t oppressing you. If you do want it, don&#39;t have the arrogance to tell the poor what is good for them.


i never said that using proper english equates lower class... i said that, if you go to prison and use proper english, you&#39;re going to be the cellblock wife. Really? I&#39;ve never heard this from people who&#39;ve gone to prison. I think the only thing that makes you the &#39;cellblock wife&#39; is a) If you are in one of the few prisons that conforms to such a steryotype b) YOu don&#39;t know how to defend yourself properly C) You&#39;re a nonce.



THe point is moot, you&#39;re not in a union (why not join the IWW?) and you work for a companay that busts unions.

i don&#39;t work for a company that busts unions. my company has never been unionised (FHI is contracted by meijers; meijers is the union busters). So you happily work for a non-unionised companany and don&#39;t seek to recitfy that?
as for the IWW... to me, they don&#39;t seem like they can really ever get anything done except for minor concessions to the workers. strikes, sit-ins, walk-outs, production sabotage... it makes their points known, but they aren&#39;t working towards the ultimate goal of revoltuion: they&#39;re just hampering it by helping the workers to squirm a little more when capitalism fucks them even harder. the IWW has the right idea... but they&#39;re going about getting things done wrong. I suggest you take your crtique up with many of the IWW members on this board. They probably won&#39;t be as polite as me.



No such thing. Being &#39;apolitical&#39; implies a satisfaction with the status quo - meaning they subscribe to capitalist doctrine.

there&#39;s a difference between supporting the status quo and accepting that, no matter how hard you try, nothing will change. Yes, one person is just an idiot - the other is an idiot that tries to justify themsleves through recieved wisdom that means fuck all.
that&#39;s most people: unwilling to fight for the change because they truly believe it isn&#39;t going to get them anywhere. These are the people that must be radicalised. THat will only happen if either the left unites for once or if capitalism tightens its noose.



Communal Capitalism works better because things are owned communally and it utilises the capitalist system.

but, again, it comes down to the raw meaning of capitalism and socialism. capitalism is built on a free market, but socialism doesn&#39;t have a specific economic system defined. it&#39;s malleable, bending for each people and each socialistic movement. what&#39;s more... if capitalism is defined as purely free market, and communism is defined as a purely communal economy, it seems logical that socialism would mix a little of both worlds, being as how it&#39;s the the developmental intermediate. That doesn&#39;t follow at all. Capitalism defends itself with brutality when under threat, when we reach communism&#39;threat&#39; becomes acedmic - but under socialism what do we do? Use semi-brutal methods? Do we have semi-emancipated workers? Do we only half eradicate the bourgeoise?



Why introduce this step at all? I&#39;m not suggesting a jump to communism straight off - but we already have a system with class envy, why make a second one?

ease the distances between the classes so that pure chaotic class struggle doesn&#39;t errupt in the revolution; we don&#39;t need a poor vs. middle class vs. bourgeois war... we need the people united. You&#39;re only saying that because you&#39;re middle class. We wouldn&#39;t even need that it would be Supporters of communism vs. Detractors. That&#39;s it. We don&#39;t need a further sytem of class opression in the middle.



I manage to live without licking out the bourgeoise arse.

never had to lick a bourgeois arse... may have eaten the kitty a few times, but i follow that up with a mushroom stamp and a pearl necklace, steal 40 &#036; from our bouegeoise&#39;s purse, crawl out a window and am never seen again. The &#39;prostitute&#39; analogy is really quite suitable for you. You seem to have this work ethic that no matter what manner of **** you work for you should work hard. A sort of "Pound me up the arse as hard as you can, sir" approach to working.



Could you explain what you mean by a "rush on the tokens"?

like the rush on the banks that caused the great depression. Energy tokens are limited to the realistic maximum energy output of the technate that are distributed equally, no one could rush on them because they wouldn&#39;t have their allocation and nothing more.


all in all, after doing some thinking on it... it does seem very workable... the harder we all work, the more there is to go around and do on... Man, this makes me almost feel sorry for being so rude to you.

[LuXe]

Nobody mentioned Indians and the Indians weren&#39;t imperialists.
Ok, Perhaps I should elaborate.


It makes no difference who owns the sun. What concerns us vitally is whether we use it properly or not.
If I am not entirely worng, an indian said this.


Like I give a shit what you think.
Fucking ditto.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

I couldn&#39;t be bothered with this when you decided that capitalism is an efficiant system. All price systems are inherently inefficiant, this includes socialism.

the free market is inefficient in that, each producer strives to outproduce the next to make more money. a need/want-based-production system takes this one more step by producing to fullfill the needs/wants of the people, and no more nor less.

but this system can&#39;t be achieved overnight. i&#39;m sure you&#39;ve read marxist philosophy... we have to evolve to that stage, not just dive in head first.


Humanity creates its own nature.

you&#39;re absolutely right. if we look to the animal kingdom (outside of humanity), what aspects of humanity do you see? essentially none. as far as nature goes, we have our own. how often do you see animals killing one another for money? animals act of nature&#39;s instinct. humans act on human instinct.

human nature.


A colourful if largley useful metaphor. THe market is not a *****, it is a beast. It controls and corrupts all that use it.

indeed it does... that&#39;s why we have to let if fade into communism. but as i said, communism is a good deal of time away from us. we can&#39;t achieve it immediately, that&#39;s why i propose we eliminate the corrupt (incorporate the bourgeois into the working class), decrease the possibility for anewed corruption (socialise it), and continue moving on toward communism, where all corruption will halt.

my socialised free market is one of the temporary states before communism can be achieved.


A good analogy for the market, that I enocountered a few years ago, is that of the ring in lord of the rings - if we were to take that analogy further then you would represent the character borimir - tragiclally Naive in the beleif you can use it to benifit humanity.

the socialised free market i propose will only benefit humanity by ensuring that communism will last via the strengthening of the economy. communism starting out on bad footing will eventually fail. but when you give it a good economic platform to build on, it will last.


What the fuck do you want with communism? Capitalism isn&#39;t oppressing you.

capitalism is not opressing me? i have absolutely no control over my future, some bourgeois cocksmooch does. me and my fellow lumpers aren&#39;t in control of our work, someone else is; we bust arse and some schmuck in an office benefits from it: they allow us to make enough to survive somewhat comfortably in hopes that we won&#39;t consider fighting back.


If you do want it, don&#39;t have the arrogance to tell the poor what is good for them.

thing about communism... it&#39;s good for everyone - poor, middle class, upper middle class, wealthy, and extremely wealthy alike.


Really? I&#39;ve never heard this from people who&#39;ve gone to prison. I think the only thing that makes you the &#39;cellblock wife&#39; is a) If you are in one of the few prisons that conforms to such a steryotype b) YOu don&#39;t know how to defend yourself properly C) You&#39;re a nonce.

ok. take the character &#39;frasier&#39; from the television show. put him in prison, and watch as he is used as currency.

as far as defending myself: most people don&#39;t prefer to settle their disputes with words as we do, so i had to learn how to fight at a young age. and besides, i love fighting, especially when i&#39;m drunk.


So you happily work for a non-unionised companany and don&#39;t seek to recitfy that?

my only union experience was a bad one. they did more against us than for us. the only good thing about the union was that it was harder to get fired.


I suggest you take your crtique up with many of the IWW members on this board. They probably won&#39;t be as polite as me.

i&#39;ve discussed this subject in depth with violencia.proletariat.


These are the people that must be radicalised. THat will only happen if either the left unites for once or if capitalism tightens its noose.

unifying the left will take time. as sufficient unification grows, so will support. but nonetheless, it will be a while.


That doesn&#39;t follow at all. Capitalism defends itself with brutality when under threat, when we reach communism&#39;threat&#39; becomes acedmic - but under socialism what do we do? Use semi-brutal methods? Do we have semi-emancipated workers? Do we only half eradicate the bourgeoise?

the workers won&#39;t be truly emancipated until the communist stage arrives.... but we have to start somewhere.


The &#39;prostitute&#39; analogy is really quite suitable for you. You seem to have this work ethic that no matter what manner of **** you work for you should work hard. A sort of "Pound me up the arse as hard as you can, sir" approach to working.

good thing about production pay... you work for yourself alot more than you do under hourly pay. hourly pay companies buy your time, not your effort. if i bust ass, i serve myself just as much as i serve them.

and what choice do i have? i refuse to be homeless, and i refuse to join them. i have to work for them at the time present... call it my need to eat.


Energy tokens are limited to the realistic maximum energy output of the technate that are distributed equally, no one could rush on them because they wouldn&#39;t have their allocation and nothing more.

got it.


but has technocracy considered services? industry/mining/agriculture isn&#39;t all that exists in the economy. how is the value of a service included in the value of an energy token?


Man, this makes me almost feel sorry for being so rude to you.

aw... he does have a heart. (don&#39;t worry... i won&#39;t tell anybody)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 08, 2006 08:43 pm

I couldn&#39;t be bothered with this when you decided that capitalism is an efficiant system. All price systems are inherently inefficiant, this includes socialism.

the free market is inefficient in that, each producer strives to outproduce the next to make more money.
No, that&#39;s not it at all. It&#39;s ineffeciant because to make money the most effective way is to create an artificial scarcity of a product.


a need/want-based-production system takes this one more step by producing to fullfill the needs/wants of the people, and no more nor less. That&#39;s not really a free market now is it? That&#39;s getting closer and closer to a distributive economy.


but this system can&#39;t be achieved overnight. i&#39;m sure you&#39;ve read marxist philosophy... we have to evolve to that stage, not just dive in head first. Some people argue that the socialist stage should simply be a stage in which all reactionary thought is obliterated to make way for the new way of thinking - as such we need things like a cultural revolution (not in the sense of trying to "destroy history" or go back to "year zero" or whatever, in the sense of actually trying to bring about an actual change in culture.) and so on.



Humanity creates its own nature.

you&#39;re absolutely right. if we look to the animal kingdom (outside of humanity), what aspects of humanity do you see? essentially none. We share many of the same instincts, the need to survive and so on. Some animals have also been identified as possibly being homosexual, which means - like humans - they do not always have sex to reproduce. So on and so forth.
as far as nature goes, we have our own. how often do you see animals killing one another for money? animals act of nature&#39;s instinct. humans act on human instinct.

human nature. I don&#39;t know if you meant for your example to e so patently ludicrous but the fact we have money shows we as humans can transend nature, we will overcome greed and lust because they are not part of some mythical &#39;nature&#39;, as rational beings we have no real nature aside from what each person creates for themselves.



A colourful if largley useful metaphor. THe market is not a *****, it is a beast. It controls and corrupts all that use it.

indeed it does... that&#39;s why we have to let if fade into communism. but as i said, communism is a good deal of time away from us. we can&#39;t achieve it immediately, that&#39;s why i propose we eliminate the corrupt (incorporate the bourgeois into the working class), decrease the possibility for anewed corruption (socialise it), and continue moving on toward communism, where all corruption will halt. You&#39;re getting there but I ask you again, why do we need the beast of the free market at all?


my socialised free market is one of the temporary states before communism can be achieved. Well, if your revolution came I&#39;d be on your side, but I doubt I&#39;d stop fighting when your system was in place. The tranisitionary period should be over a few years, not a few decades. That&#39;s where the USSR fell apart, Lenin was on too long whicfh made way for Stalin and fnaly for triators like khurschev and so on.



A good analogy for the market, that I enocountered a few years ago, is that of the ring in lord of the rings - if we were to take that analogy further then you would represent the character borimir - tragiclally Naive in the beleif you can use it to benifit humanity.

the socialised free market i propose will only benefit humanity by ensuring that communism will last via the strengthening of the economy. communism starting out on bad footing will eventually fail. but when you give it a good economic platform to build on, it will last. You do not need the free market for a good economic platform, a logically planned economy would work so much better.



What the fuck do you want with communism? Capitalism isn&#39;t oppressing you.

capitalism is not opressing me? i have absolutely no control over my future, some bourgeois cocksmooch does. me and my fellow lumpers aren&#39;t in control of our work, someone else is; we bust arse and some schmuck in an office benefits from it: they allow us to make enough to survive somewhat comfortably in hopes that we won&#39;t consider fighting back.


If you do want it, don&#39;t have the arrogance to tell the poor what is good for them.

thing about communism... it&#39;s good for everyone - poor, middle class, upper middle class, wealthy, and extremely wealthy alike. I reconsidered my position on that shortly after typing it, your point.



Really? I&#39;ve never heard this from people who&#39;ve gone to prison. I think the only thing that makes you the &#39;cellblock wife&#39; is a) If you are in one of the few prisons that conforms to such a steryotype b) YOu don&#39;t know how to defend yourself properly C) You&#39;re a nonce.

ok. take the character &#39;frasier&#39; from the television show. put him in prison, and watch as he is used as currency. I don&#39;t watch fraiser, but I think your image of prisons is based on pop culture steryotypes rather than actual experience. As I say, none of the poeple I know who have been "provided with free room and board by her majesty" do not speak of prison rapes. THey talk of violence occiasonally, especially against rapists and nonces.


as far as defending myself: most people don&#39;t prefer to settle their disputes with words as we do, so i had to learn how to fight at a young age. and besides, i love fighting, especially when i&#39;m drunk. Ahah&#33; Common ground&#33; So what are you worried about, you can defend yourself, prison isn&#39;t an endless chain of rape - what is really stopping you murder?



So you happily work for a non-unionised companany and don&#39;t seek to recitfy that?

my only union experience was a bad one. they did more against us than for us. the only good thing about the union was that it was harder to get fired. That&#39;s entirely irrelevent. Many unions are corrupt, it&#39;s best to find one that isn&#39;t and that means searching.



I suggest you take your crtique up with many of the IWW members on this board. They probably won&#39;t be as polite as me.

i&#39;ve discussed this subject in depth with violencia.proletariat. Did he explain that the aim of the IWW was not simply to "minor concessions to the workers. strikes, sit-ins, walk-outs, production sabotage" it is toprovide the workers with "one big union", which is essentially a syndicalist idea (although there is debate as to the politics of the IWW, as they maintian they have none.).



These are the people that must be radicalised. THat will only happen if either the left unites for once or if capitalism tightens its noose.

unifying the left will take time. well get going...
as sufficient unification grows, so will support. but nonetheless, it will be a while. I am under no false hope I will see a first world revolution in my time. It would be good though, but the left currently is too fractured and full of petty sectarianism.



That doesn&#39;t follow at all. Capitalism defends itself with brutality when under threat, when we reach communism&#39;threat&#39; becomes acedmic - but under socialism what do we do? Use semi-brutal methods? Do we have semi-emancipated workers? Do we only half eradicate the bourgeoise?

the workers won&#39;t be truly emancipated until the communist stage arrives.... but we have to start somewhere. So what about this semi-brutality or our semi-democracy or our semi-whatever. We can&#39;t just have a half-decent system - no one wants that.



The &#39;prostitute&#39; analogy is really quite suitable for you. You seem to have this work ethic that no matter what manner of **** you work for you should work hard. A sort of "Pound me up the arse as hard as you can, sir" approach to working.

good thing about production pay... you work for yourself alot more than you do under hourly pay. hourly pay companies buy your time, not your effort. if i bust ass, i serve myself just as much as i serve them. You earn, proportionally less for your bust arse than they do. Every time you work hard you provide them with more profits.


and what choice do i have? i refuse to be homeless, I guess squatting is beneath you?
and i refuse to join them. i have to work for them at the time present... call it my need to eat. Everyone works for capitalism, most leftists have a tendency toward doing as little as possible to feed the beast. Unlike you.



Energy tokens are limited to the realistic maximum energy output of the technate that are distributed equally, no one could rush on them because they wouldn&#39;t have their allocation and nothing more.

got it.[


but has technocracy considered services? industry/mining/agriculture isn&#39;t all that exists in the economy. how is the value of a service included in the value of an energy token? Well if the service requires kilowatt-hours then it is simply charged at whatever rate, otherwise it is entirely free. It may well be part of the 700 or so hours of annual work in the technate.



Man, this makes me almost feel sorry for being so rude to you.

aw... he does have a heart. (don&#39;t worry... i won&#39;t tell anybody)
What are you talking about? I&#39;m the most kind hearted and friendly member of this board.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

No, that&#39;s not it at all. It&#39;s ineffeciant because to make money the most effective way is to create an artificial scarcity of a product.

that&#39;s the inefficiency of it. what i meant to put with that post was that is is *efficient* because they strive to outproduce the competitors. my fault.

but artificial scarcity isn&#39;t all of it. they also create a speculated value to boost prices (compare a rolex with a standard watch... each does the exact same thing, but they create an image for the rolex... thus the consumer pays much, much more for nothing but a name).

these, however, can be largely attributed to capitalist greed. as the system changes from capitalist free market to socialist free market, these inefficiencies will slowly subside, with all inefficiency disappearing as the communist economy emerges from the socialist free market.


That&#39;s not really a free market now is it? That&#39;s getting closer and closer to a distributive economy.

point exactly. inefficiency will disappear with the communist economy, but we can&#39;t just go right into it.


Some people argue that the socialist stage should simply be a stage in which all reactionary thought is obliterated to make way for the new way of thinking - as such we need things like a cultural revolution (not in the sense of trying to "destroy history" or go back to "year zero" or whatever, in the sense of actually trying to bring about an actual change in culture.) and so on.

i believe the cultural revolution is only one part of the overall revolution. as the bourgeois are incorporated into the working class, reactionism will no doubt arise, and will be dealt with firmly by the workingclass as a whole to assure that the revolution proceeds properly.


We share many of the same instincts, the need to survive and so on. Some animals have also been identified as possibly being homosexual, which means - like humans - they do not always have sex to reproduce. So on and so forth.

as far as that goes... homosexuality is much more common among humans than animals. but animals copulating for reasons other than reproduction... it&#39;s rare, but does happen (dolphins, especially, love coitus almost as much as we do). think about deer hunting... they sell doe hormones and urine to attract bucks; it works because the buck wants some.


I don&#39;t know if you meant for your example to e so patently ludicrous but the fact we have money shows we as humans can transend nature, we will overcome greed and lust because they are not part of some mythical &#39;nature&#39;, as rational beings we have no real nature aside from what each person creates for themselves.

that&#39;s why it&#39;s human nature. currency and posession, and their offspring, greed, are innate only to us. just because some of us can overcome this nature doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not part of our nature, as a whole species. for example, it&#39;s natural for an animal to insticntively attract a mate of the opposite sex... but apparently, some go for the same. it&#39;s not universal, but it&#39;s common to enough of us to be considered part of our nature.


You&#39;re getting there but I ask you again, why do we need the beast of the free market at all?

because it&#39;s a beast that is to powerful to destroy. we can only hope to capture it and hold it in captivity until it dies.


Well, if your revolution came I&#39;d be on your side, but I doubt I&#39;d stop fighting when your system was in place. The tranisitionary period should be over a few years, not a few decades. That&#39;s where the USSR fell apart, Lenin was on too long whicfh made way for Stalin and fnaly for triators like khurschev and so on.

naturally.... most of our comrades would continue pushing toward communism. but as you said, we have to radicalise the workers. this will take time. the system is no doubt temporary, but its duration depends on how quickly we can radicalise the whole of the working class. without complete solidarity in the working class, communism cannot be achieved; until unity is forged, this system will remain in place, in one form or other.


You do not need the free market for a good economic platform, a logically planned economy would work so much better.

but, it&#39;s like i said. if we completely break down the economy in one fell swoop, it&#39;ll never recover, no matter how logical the thinking involved in restructuring it. we have to use socialism to strengthen the economy and prepare it for its transition from free market to communist.


I don&#39;t watch fraiser, but I think your image of prisons is based on pop culture steryotypes rather than actual experience. As I say, none of the poeple I know who have been "provided with free room and board by her majesty" do not speak of prison rapes. THey talk of violence occiasonally, especially against rapists and nonces.

prisons probably differ from one place to another. amerikka has relatively few rehabilitation programs, and thus our prisons are extremely overcrowded. most of the prisoners aren&#39;t dangerous people, they&#39;re just drug traffickers. but prison turns them into dangerous people. i&#39;ve only heard of rape in prison once from an exfelon... but i&#39;ve heard of *plenty* of violence, especially gang related. besides... you know it happens - even a year without a woman is a long time... imagine going 20 years without a woman.


Ahah&#33; Common ground&#33; So what are you worried about, you can defend yourself, prison isn&#39;t an endless chain of rape - what is really stopping you murder?

i can fight... but they can fight better, and i&#39;m sure nearly all of them are much bigger than me. therefore, when i get my arse stomped by some motherfucker who&#39;s 300 lbs of solid steel, i become his wife.

fuck that.


Did he explain that the aim of the IWW was not simply to "minor concessions to the workers. strikes, sit-ins, walk-outs, production sabotage" it is toprovide the workers with "one big union", which is essentially a syndicalist idea (although there is debate as to the politics of the IWW, as they maintian they have none.).

yeah. he also agreed that they no longer have the kind of power to instigate any kind of revolutionary movement; same goal, just hampered.


I am under no false hope I will see a first world revolution in my time. It would be good though, but the left currently is too fractured and full of petty sectarianism.

we may see the emergence of a socialist system in our life time... not very likely, but possible.

as far as leftist factions - that&#39;s the only thing that irritates me about the whole leftist movement: not enough unification. everyone has to have their exact ideas matched to the &#39;t,&#39; else they&#39;re not on for the ride. all leftists should just join their local communist party. in general, we can all agree that communism is the goal. with the issues that arise along the way, use the party&#39;s democratic conventions to solve them.


So what about this semi-brutality or our semi-democracy or our semi-whatever. We can&#39;t just have a half-decent system - no one wants that.

we have right now a system somewhere between indecent and semi-decent. socialism will fall somewhere between semi decent and decent, and communism at decent. we don&#39;t want just a semi-decent system, you&#39;re right. we want change; this is why we won&#39;t stop at socialism... it&#39;s in the right (well, left) direction, but not all the way there.


Everyone works for capitalism, most leftists have a tendency toward doing as little as possible to feed the beast. Unlike you.

if i do as little as possible, i don&#39;t make any money. no money means no survival.

and what&#39;s more... lumping is the only job i&#39;ve ever done, and all lumper services pay production rate. besides... i like my job. obviously, some bourgeois prick is making way more off of my effort than i am, but that&#39;s pretty much the only part about it that sucks. it&#39;s good pay, hard work, cool people, good benefits, and good hours.

i&#39;ll admit, though... independant lumping was way better. as an IL, i was taking home 300 to 400 &#036; cash every day. hell, on my best earning day ever, i made over 1,000&#036; cash in 9 hours. but independant lumping has pretty much gone extinct... everyone uses a lumper service because they&#39;re easier to control.


What are you talking about? I&#39;m the most kind hearted and friendly member of this board.

hell yeah. have a cigarette, on me.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 09, 2006 07:41 pm

No, that&#39;s not it at all. It&#39;s ineffeciant because to make money the most effective way is to create an artificial scarcity of a product.

that&#39;s the inefficiency of it. what i meant to put with that post was that is is *efficient* because they strive to outproduce the competitors. my fault.

but artificial scarcity isn&#39;t all of it. they also create a speculated value to boost prices (compare a rolex with a standard watch... each does the exact same thing, but they create an image for the rolex... thus the consumer pays much, much more for nothing but a name).

these, however, can be largely attributed to capitalist greed. as the system changes from capitalist free market to socialist free market, these inefficiencies will slowly subside, with all inefficiency disappearing as the communist economy emerges from the socialist free market.
So you&#39;re trying to build up this socialised free market on greed?





Some people argue that the socialist stage should simply be a stage in which all reactionary thought is obliterated to make way for the new way of thinking - as such we need things like a cultural revolution (not in the sense of trying to "destroy history" or go back to "year zero" or whatever, in the sense of actually trying to bring about an actual change in culture.) and so on.

i believe the cultural revolution is only one part of the overall revolution. as the bourgeois are incorporated into the working class, reactionism will no doubt arise, and will be dealt with firmly by the workingclass as a whole to assure that the revolution proceeds properly. It is only one part of the revolution too be sure. I think it would be easier to continue the revolution through the tranistionary period to prevent stagnation and the rise of dictatorial rulers.



We share many of the same instincts, the need to survive and so on. Some animals have also been identified as possibly being homosexual, which means - like humans - they do not always have sex to reproduce. So on and so forth.

as far as that goes... homosexuality is much more common among humans than animals. but animals copulating for reasons other than reproduction... it&#39;s rare, but does happen (dolphins, especially, love coitus almost as much as we do). think about deer hunting... they sell doe hormones and urine to attract bucks; it works because the buck wants some. Rarity doesn&#39;t enter into it.



I don&#39;t know if you meant for your example to e so patently ludicrous but the fact we have money shows we as humans can transend nature, we will overcome greed and lust because they are not part of some mythical &#39;nature&#39;, as rational beings we have no real nature aside from what each person creates for themselves.

that&#39;s why it&#39;s human nature. currency and posession, and their offspring, greed, are innate only to us. just because some of us can overcome this nature doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not part of our nature, Nature, by definition is something that&#39;s impossible to overcome. The only example I can really think of is that is not in the nature of humanity to be able to fly without the aid of machines. Our thoughts are not dictated by some &#39;nature&#39;, the idea is as ridiculous as god.
as a whole species. for example, it&#39;s natural for an animal to insticntively attract a mate of the opposite sex... but apparently, some go for the same. it&#39;s not universal, but it&#39;s common to enough of us to be considered part of our nature. Any amrgin of error and it isn&#39;t nature. TO take another example, Badgers cannot walk on their hind legs without human intervention, so that is not part of their nature. Most animals have natural behaviours as well, a tendency to protect their young and so on - which are actually absent from humans.



You&#39;re getting there but I ask you again, why do we need the beast of the free market at all?

because it&#39;s a beast that is to powerful to destroy. we can only hope to capture it and hold it in captivity until it dies. That&#39;s defeatist. It can easily be destroyed, like any other mechanism.


You do not need the free market for a good economic platform, a logically planned economy would work so much better.

but, it&#39;s like i said. if we completely break down the economy in one fell swoop, it&#39;ll never recover, no matter how logical the thinking involved in restructuring it. we have to use socialism to strengthen the economy and prepare it for its transition from free market to communist. THe socialism is the tranistion. The best way to replace the "free" market is to run everything through the state, until the state is no longer a nescessary organ (i.e once the tranistion has ended).



I don&#39;t watch fraiser, but I think your image of prisons is based on pop culture steryotypes rather than actual experience. As I say, none of the poeple I know who have been "provided with free room and board by her majesty" do not speak of prison rapes. THey talk of violence occiasonally, especially against rapists and nonces.

prisons probably differ from one place to another. amerikka has relatively few rehabilitation programs, and thus our prisons are extremely overcrowded. most of the prisoners aren&#39;t dangerous people, they&#39;re just drug traffickers. but prison turns them into dangerous people. i&#39;ve only heard of rape in prison once from an exfelon... but i&#39;ve heard of *plenty* of violence, especially gang related. besides... you know it happens - even a year without a woman is a long time... imagine going 20 years without a woman.
1) Most western liberal nations have overcrowded prisons, especially Britian and America.
2) People do not suddenly start raping members of the same sex simple because they haven&#39;t had sex for a year. If that were true I&#39;d be a convicted serial rapist. WHat you&#39;re positing is this strange prison where everyone is a) A closeted homosexual/bisexual and b) Mentally capable of rape.



Ahah&#33; Common ground&#33; So what are you worried about, you can defend yourself, prison isn&#39;t an endless chain of rape - what is really stopping you murder?

i can fight... but they can fight better, and i&#39;m sure nearly all of them are much bigger than me. therefore, when i get my arse stomped by some motherfucker who&#39;s 300 lbs of solid steel, i become his wife. Let&#39;s put it another way then. This overcrowded prison: how exactly has the state prevented asny of the rapists or murderers doing what they do best?



as far as leftist factions - that&#39;s the only thing that irritates me about the whole leftist movement: not enough unification. everyone has to have their exact ideas matched to the &#39;t,&#39; else they&#39;re not on for the ride. all leftists should just join their local communist party. in general, we can all agree that communism is the goal. with the issues that arise along the way, use the party&#39;s democratic conventions to solve them. Yes.



So what about this semi-brutality or our semi-democracy or our semi-whatever. We can&#39;t just have a half-decent system - no one wants that.

we have right now a system somewhere between indecent and semi-decent. socialism will fall somewhere between semi decent and decent, and communism at decent. we don&#39;t want just a semi-decent system, you&#39;re right. we want change; this is why we won&#39;t stop at socialism... it&#39;s in the right (well, left) direction, but not all the way there. We could, y&#39;know try to get rid of that shit altogether.



Everyone works for capitalism, most leftists have a tendency toward doing as little as possible to feed the beast. Unlike you.

if i do as little as possible, i don&#39;t make any money. "As little as possible" implies doing enough work to live, fuckwit.
no money means no survival. I&#39;m not advocating trying to livwe without money you stupid shitheap.



What are you talking about? I&#39;m the most kind hearted and friendly member of this board.

hell yeah. have a cigarette, on me. Goddamn it, I&#39;m trying to stop.
*sparks up* After this one. :lol:

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

So you&#39;re trying to build up this socialised free market on greed?

no, i&#39;m saying that greed is natural to the free market - that&#39;s why it can prosper. i propose socialising it to control the greed - with greed limited, we can transition to the communist economy alot easier - no one will have anything to lose.


It is only one part of the revolution too be sure. I think it would be easier to continue the revolution through the tranistionary period to prevent stagnation and the rise of dictatorial rulers.

definately.

but we can&#39;t have chaos in the transitionary period, i.e., we can&#39;t go directly from capitalist free market to communist economy. thus the socialised free market, which essentially, as i mentioned, is a combination of a communist economic system to distribute our needs and a free market economic system to distribute our wants. after communism has been established, one of the distributive economic systems (not including a command economy) can be established to distribute both wants and needs on a completely free basis.


Nature, by definition is something that&#39;s impossible to overcome.

good point. maybe nature isn&#39;t the proper word.


The only example I can really think of is that is not in the nature of humanity to be able to fly without the aid of machines.

that&#39;s not nature, that&#39;s ability.


Our thoughts are not dictated by some &#39;nature&#39;, the idea is as ridiculous as god.

i would say that, for the most part, they are. we have more than a survival instinct. though i have to agree that it&#39;s not universal, as a natural instinct, it is extremely widespread; for example: nearly all of us want sex on a daily basis - lust. common human instinct (as opposed to nature, such as survival).


That&#39;s defeatist. It can easily be destroyed, like any other mechanism.

destroying the beast of the free market would hinder our revolution because it would result in us (the communists) having to start from scratch. that&#39;s why i propose we hold it in captivity (socialise it) and let it die (transition into communist economy). without the freedom it has now, it&#39;ll die quickly.


THe socialism is the tranistion. The best way to replace the "free" market is to run everything through the state, until the state is no longer a nescessary organ (i.e once the tranistion has ended).

allowing the state to run the economy until after communism has been established will just create another class of economic elites, who, chances are, won&#39;t give up their control of the monopoly over industry too easily. it&#39;ll start out as a temporary construct, but it won&#39;t dissipate and will become permanent.

we&#39;ve seen how well a state-run economy has worked in the past.


People do not suddenly start raping members of the same sex simple because they haven&#39;t had sex for a year. If that were true I&#39;d be a convicted serial rapist.

a year? damn... aren&#39;t there sleezy bar sluts or prostitutes or anything over there?


you&#39;re positing is this strange prison where everyone is a) A closeted homosexual/bisexual and b) Mentally capable of rape.

i didn&#39;t say it happens alot, but that it does happen. hell, it probably happens most often as a form of assault or retribution than as a sexual act.

and... what kind of people do you think they put in prison? they sure don&#39;t leave those &#39;mentally capable of rape&#39; people free...


Let&#39;s put it another way then. This overcrowded prison: how exactly has the state prevented asny of the rapists or murderers doing what they do best?

that&#39;s exactly the point: they have stopped them well.... that&#39;s one of the reasons why there&#39;s overcrowding. but i hear that most rape artists are never caught, and most rape canvases never go to the authorities....


We could, y&#39;know try to get rid of that shit altogether.

that&#39;s the point of the revolution. but we can&#39;t have it over night.


"As little as possible" implies doing enough work to live, fuckwit.

well, whether i like it or not, i do live in a capitalist country, and my work alone isn&#39;t enough to get me the things i want. therefore, i have to throw in that extra effort to ensure a comfortable living in an uncomfortable environment.

the fact that i can live comfortably is one of the things that i don&#39;t want to change. what i want to change is that *everyone* can live a comfortable life as well... we communists are very altruistic :)


Goddamn it, I&#39;m trying to stop.
*sparks up* After this one. :lol:

don&#39;t worry.... they&#39;re 555s, the best damn communist cigarette in the world.

[Jazzratt]

no, i&#39;m saying that greed is natural to the free market - that&#39;s why it can prosper. i propose socialising it to control the greed - with greed limited, we can transition to the communist economy alot easier - no one will have anything to lose. That assumes greed is innate, rather than simply a consequence of the price system.



definately.

but we can&#39;t have chaos in the transitionary period, i.e., we can&#39;t go directly from capitalist free market to communist economy. thus the socialised free market, which essentially, as i mentioned, is a combination of a communist economic system to distribute our needs and a free market economic system to distribute our wants. after communism has been established, one of the distributive economic systems (not including a command economy) can be established to distribute both wants and needs on a completely free basis. YOu still haven&#39;t illustrated why a system of planned economy would fail, and why we need this " free market".



i would say that, for the most part, they are. we have more than a survival instinct. though i have to agree that it&#39;s not universal, as a natural instinct, it is extremely widespread; for example: nearly all of us want sex on a daily basis - lust. common human instinct (as opposed to nature, such as survival).
Lust is a poor example, it is not a universal human "instinct". But then nothing is, the whole idea is a nonsense.



destroying the beast of the free market would hinder our revolution because it would result in us (the communists) having to start from scratch. that&#39;s why i propose we hold it in captivity (socialise it) and let it die (transition into communist economy). without the freedom it has now, it&#39;ll die quickly.
Bollocks it would. Resources do not cease to exist when the system by which they are used is destroyed, you&#39;re talking out of your arse.



allowing the state to run the economy until after communism has been established will just create another class of economic elites, who, chances are, won&#39;t give up their control of the monopoly over industry too easily. it&#39;ll start out as a temporary construct, but it won&#39;t dissipate and will become permanent.

we&#39;ve seen how well a state-run economy has worked in the past. Your making the mistake of all the various capitalists on this board, that is you are assuming what has happened, is necessarily what will happen, even in completely different material conditions.


a year? damn... aren&#39;t there sleezy bar sluts or prostitutes or anything over there? Probably. I just don&#39;t want to have sex.


i didn&#39;t say it happens alot, but that it does happen. hell, it probably happens most often as a form of assault or retribution than as a sexual act. I&#39;d probably say the most common form of assualt in prison is assualt. Remember the root of this argument is your reason not to murdwer something, and you appear to be justifying this beleift that the state prevents you murdering simply because you fear that you might end up in a prison that could potentially contain an unhinged rapist? That&#39;s a pisspoor excuse.


and... what kind of people do you think they put in prison? they sure don&#39;t leave those &#39;mentally capable of rape&#39; people free... Most people in prison have not raped, nor desire to rape anyone. The kind of person who would rape someone as a form of assualt is usually treated differently by the law.



that&#39;s exactly the point: they have stopped them well.... that&#39;s one of the reasons why there&#39;s overcrowding. but i hear that most rape artists are never caught, and most rape canvases never go to the authorities.... Firstly dude - that is possibly the most sickening and disturbing metaphor I have ever read, you may want to reeadjust your head if you think that people who rape are fucking artists. You sick little fuck. Secondly, people don&#39;t go to prison because they have been prevented from commiting a crime, you stupid shitstaff they go because they have commited it, regardless of the state.



that&#39;s the point of the revolution. but we can&#39;t have it over night. No one&#39;s making that claim.



well, whether i like it or not, i do live in a capitalist country, and my work alone isn&#39;t enough to get me the things i want. therefore, i have to throw in that extra effort to ensure a comfortable living in an uncomfortable environment. Well I&#39;m glad to see you draw the line at not owning the means of production yourself. Simply being a class traitor.


the fact that i can live comfortably is one of the things that i don&#39;t want to change. what i want to change is that *everyone* can live a comfortable life as well... we communists are very altruistic Agreed.

[Dimentio]

Abundance cannot be distributed in a market system because the excess destroys the pricing mechanisms. Hence artificial scarcity. The reason for that is not greed, except in terms of the most progressive aspect of capitalism, namely the need for the capitalists to reinvest in their production in order to take over markets.

In a true free market, that process would happen until the market has reached a state of abundance and a crash happens.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:56 pm
Abundance cannot be distributed in a market system because the excess destroys the pricing mechanisms. Hence artificial scarcity. The reason for that is not greed, except in terms of the most progressive aspect of capitalism, namely the need for the capitalists to reinvest in their production in order to take over markets.

In a true free market, that process would happen until the market has reached a state of abundance and a crash happens.
wow, you&#39;ve missed out on alot of the debate. my point is that, the abundance will be available with only a strong economy. if we completely destroy the capitalist free market economy upon the revolution, we&#39;ll never get it restabilised. the socialised free market will make the economy ready for a transition, and wil only be temporary.

and i never said it would be a true free market.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

That assumes greed is innate, rather than simply a consequence of the price system.

though it&#39;s probably mostly the latter, i believe a little of the former is involved as well.


YOu still haven&#39;t illustrated why a system of planned economy would fail, and why we need this " free market".

look to history for that answer. the soviet union, as they moved from capitalism (albeit a very weak capitalism in its primal stages) to socialism converted the economy to a planned system. they failed. the economy didn&#39;t make much improvement until after ww2, and it never transferred to the hands of the workers.

this is my personal belief, that sudden change will result in failure. nonetheless, we both want the same thing: communism. this is the arguement that i&#39;ve been upholding against dissenter, but he can&#39;t see past his own views. one way or other, it will be established. i just want to reduce the possibility for failure, and i believe that way is by controlling the free market through the revolution and slowly transitioning it into a communal economy, and that the first step is to socialise it (remove bourgeois from control and move that control to the workers; this will prepare the workers for the communal economy that will come later, as well, since they will be in charge of that as well).


Bollocks it would. Resources do not cease to exist when the system by which they are used is destroyed, you&#39;re talking out of your arse.

the resources will always be there, but during the revolution, much of these will be used to fuel the workers&#39; progress. as well, the fact that, if we suddenly remove the free market, much of the resources (factories, in particular) will go into disuse until the revolution is over.


Your making the mistake of all the various capitalists on this board, that is you are assuming what has happened, is necessarily what will happen, even in completely different material condit

difference is, i&#39;m not using it in arguement against communism, and i&#39;m not saying it will happen, i&#39;m saying the possibility that it could happen is too great.


Probably. I just don&#39;t want to have sex.

you know, i think they have an ointment for that.... :)


I&#39;d probably say the most common form of assualt in prison is assualt. Remember the root of this argument is your reason not to murdwer something, and you appear to be justifying this beleift that the state prevents you murdering simply because you fear that you might end up in a prison that could potentially contain an unhinged rapist? That&#39;s a pisspoor excuse.

the fact that i don&#39;t want to get beaten and raped in prison is only part of why i don&#39;t murder people... there&#39;s also the fact that i like what little freedom i still have, such as the freedom to access the internet and debate politics and the freedom to get wasted whenever i want.


Most people in prison have not raped, nor desire to rape anyone. The kind of person who would rape someone as a form of assualt is usually treated differently by the law.

remember now... rape artists do go to prison. there&#39;s a higher concentration of them in there than out here.


Firstly dude - that is possibly the most sickening and disturbing metaphor I have ever read, you may want to reeadjust your head if you think that people who rape are fucking artists. You sick little fuck.

i never said it wasn&#39;t twisted... i&#39;ve always referred to criminals as artists... it&#39;s my reaction to yuppie euphemisms.


Secondly, people don&#39;t go to prison because they have been prevented from commiting a crime, you stupid shitstaff they go because they have commited it, regardless of the state.

but the prison system helps ward off crime: it hangs the possibility of losing your freedom right in front of you... it makes some potential criminals think twice.


Well I&#39;m glad to see you draw the line at not owning the means of production yourself. Simply being a class traitor.

let&#39;s put it this way... if i do just enough to make enough to survive, then eventually i&#39;ll be replaced. they won&#39;t fire me for being slow, but if i get slow, they&#39;ll find reasons to fire me. it&#39;s not a skilled trade, it&#39;s lumping, and physically capable people come a dime per dozen.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+December 10, 2006 09:15 am--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ December 10, 2006 09:15 am)
[email protected] 10, 2006 12:56 pm
Abundance cannot be distributed in a market system because the excess destroys the pricing mechanisms. Hence artificial scarcity. The reason for that is not greed, except in terms of the most progressive aspect of capitalism, namely the need for the capitalists to reinvest in their production in order to take over markets.

In a true free market, that process would happen until the market has reached a state of abundance and a crash happens.
wow, you&#39;ve missed out on alot of the debate. my point is that, the abundance will be available with only a strong economy. if we completely destroy the capitalist free market economy upon the revolution, we&#39;ll never get it restabilised. the socialised free market will make the economy ready for a transition, and wil only be temporary.

and i never said it would be a true free market. [/b]

So the real difference between you and someone like jazzratt is simply tactics.

You propose to harness the free market to stabilise the socialist revolution. But simutaneously propose to strangle the free market in order to push the bourgoise down. how do you plan to pull this off?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 03:36 pm
You propose to harness the free market to stabilise the socialist revolution. But simutaneously propose to strangle the free market in order to push the bourgoise down. how do you plan to pull this off?
A yet-to-be-determined mix of drugs, robots, and bongo drums I&#39;d imagine.

:lol:

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)So the real difference between you and someone like jazzratt is simply tactics.[/b]

primarily, yes. i&#39;m more cautious going into the revolution.


You propose to harness the free market to stabilise the socialist revolution. But simutaneously propose to strangle the free market in order to push the bourgoise down. how do you plan to pull this off?

how is it a strangle-hold on the free market by putting the workers in charge of it? eventually, the workers will have complete control of the planning evolved in whatever distributive economy is established under communism; i suggest that the process to worker control of the communist economy begin with worker control of the free market economy.


t_wolves_fan
A yet-to-be-determined mix of drugs, robots, and bongo drums I&#39;d imagine.

no capitalists allowed&#33; socialist discussion only (read the first few lines of the original post).

nonetheless, i&#39;d be more than happy to discuss this subject with you at a later time. right now i&#39;m just trying to gain my normal user status back.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+December 12, 2006 11:14 am--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ December 12, 2006 11:14 am)
Originally posted by [email protected]
So the real difference between you and someone like jazzratt is simply tactics.

primarily, yes. i&#39;m more cautious going into the revolution.


You propose to harness the free market to stabilise the socialist revolution. But simutaneously propose to strangle the free market in order to push the bourgoise down. how do you plan to pull this off?

how is it a strangle-hold on the free market by putting the workers in charge of it? eventually, the workers will have complete control of the planning evolved in whatever distributive economy is established under communism; i suggest that the process to worker control of the communist economy begin with worker control of the free market economy.


t_wolves_fan
A yet-to-be-determined mix of drugs, robots, and bongo drums I&#39;d imagine.

no capitalists allowed&#33; socialist discussion only (read the first few lines of the original post).

nonetheless, i&#39;d be more than happy to discuss this subject with you at a later time. right now i&#39;m just trying to gain my normal user status back. [/b]
Like all socialists, you do not understand capitalism . The capitalists do not control the capitalist economy; the consumers do. A capitalist cannot make a dime by producing items which the consumers do not wish.

Indeed, ALL rational economic activity has to be based upon producing those items which people wish to purchase. Why else have production of anything? So tghere needs to be a system for the producers to determine what the consumers wish.

As I mentioned earlier, if the ONLY change is that the workers are in charge of the means of production, then you have changed nothing. Because the workers will still produce under the capitalist system of production, with all its benefits, but yes, also all the "alleged" pitfalls of capitalism. When you start to knock out the underpinnings of capitalism to crush, you are knocking out that which you depend upon to benefit the socialist community. Something else needs replace it. Simply saying "worker ownership" doesn&#39;t cut it. The workers still need a system to make decisons within.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 12:06 am

Like all socialists, you do not understand capitalism . The capitalists do not control the capitalist economy; the consumers do. A capitalist cannot make a dime by producing items which the consumers do not wish.

Indeed, ALL rational economic activity has to be based upon producing those items which people wish to purchase. Why else have production of anything? So tghere needs to be a system for the producers to determine what the consumers wish.

As I mentioned earlier, if the ONLY change is that the workers are in charge of the means of production, then you have changed nothing. Because the workers will still produce under the capitalist system of production, with all its benefits, but yes, also all the "alleged" pitfalls of capitalism. When you start to knock out the underpinnings of capitalism to crush, you are knocking out that which you depend upon to benefit the socialist community. Something else needs replace it. Simply saying "worker ownership" doesn&#39;t cut it. The workers still need a system to make decisons within.
read the original post. this is not a discussion between capitalists and communists. this is a discussion between communists.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+December 13, 2006 01:48 pm--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ December 13, 2006 01:48 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2006 12:06 am

Like all socialists, you do not understand capitalism . The capitalists do not control the capitalist economy; the consumers do. A capitalist cannot make a dime by producing items which the consumers do not wish.

Indeed, ALL rational economic activity has to be based upon producing those items which people wish to purchase. Why else have production of anything? So tghere needs to be a system for the producers to determine what the consumers wish.

As I mentioned earlier, if the ONLY change is that the workers are in charge of the means of production, then you have changed nothing. Because the workers will still produce under the capitalist system of production, with all its benefits, but yes, also all the "alleged" pitfalls of capitalism. When you start to knock out the underpinnings of capitalism to crush, you are knocking out that which you depend upon to benefit the socialist community. Something else needs replace it. Simply saying "worker ownership" doesn&#39;t cut it. The workers still need a system to make decisons within.
read the original post. this is not a discussion between capitalists and communists. this is a discussion between communists. [/b]

Read my original post on the subject. This is an Opposing Ideology board, and backers of capitalism are of a far greater "opposing ideology" than a communist dissenter.

I also said that the other communists would rip you to pieces- which they have. The problem isn&#39;t determing which brand of communism is best, the problem is that the entire label is incorrect. That is what the OI board is about; for socilaists to be challenged about their brand, not merely their flavor.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 02:33 am
Read my original post on the subject. This is an Opposing Ideology board, and backers of capitalism are of a far greater "opposing ideology" than a communist dissenter.

I also said that the other communists would rip you to pieces- which they have. The problem isn&#39;t determing which brand of communism is best, the problem is that the entire label is incorrect. That is what the OI board is about; for socilaists to be challenged about their brand, not merely their flavor.
apparently, though... using a socialised free market to sustain the economy through out the revolution so that the communist economy (based of distribution and planning) can develop unhindered by violence is an opposing ideology.

strangely enough, 2 senior members of the michigan chapter of the communist party of the united states of amerikka seem to feel that my ideas are in-line with communist ideology.

the point of this thread is to debate my status with other socialists here.

but i tell you what, if you can convince them that i&#39;m on their side, i&#39;ll be more than happy to debate the subject with you and other capitalists.

until then, piss off.

[LuXe]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 14, 2006 04:59 pm
strangely enough, 2 senior members of the michigan chapter of the communist party of the united states of amerikka seem to feel that my ideas are in-line with communist ideology.
Is there any way you can prove this statement?

[Intellectual47]

Aeturnal Narcosis, I would never call you a Commie bastard. To me, you&#39;re just a Commie.


It doesn&#39;t sound like much but it means a lot.

This infighting among ya&#39;ll reminds me of the Great Purge.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by LuXe+December 14, 2006 05:06 pm--> (LuXe &#064; December 14, 2006 05:06 pm) Is there any way you can prove this statement? [/b]
unfortunately i can&#39;t. about 3 months ago, i applied to join the CPUSA. before joining, i met with 2 of the members of the michigan chapter to discuss my membership and political, economic, and social beliefs.

i imagine if they had the time to deal with socialist ideology on the internet, they&#39;d probably be posting here as well, in which case i&#39;d just invite them to this board...


Intellectual47
This infighting among ya&#39;ll reminds me of the Great Purge.

i mentioned before that i feel like Leon Trotsky - exiled from the community for disagreeing with the great tyrant. it seems to me, the point of making a leftist forum on the internet is to bring different leftist ideas together, not to separate them and create different CLASSES of leftists.